Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (TROWSE BRIDGE) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 9 July.

BERKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 July.

SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL (OMNIBUS SERVICES)
ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

European Court of Human Rights

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to state whether Her Majesty's Government intend to renew in January 1986 the right of individual citizens to petition the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): The Government are currently considering the matter.

Mr. Maclennan: Why are the Government not of a final mind on this matter? Why are they seeking to put in doubt the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the convention, which have been protected by the right of individual petition since 1965? Does the Secretary of State accept that that right was intended to supplement the protection of those fundamental rights and freedoms in our domestic courts? Will he consider incorporating the convention and allow that to come to fruition?

Mr. Brittan: The Government are not putting anything in jeopardy. The due date for renewal is January 1986. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a decision will be taken well before then.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the European Court has stretched the convention to a quite unreasonable degree by interfering

with domestic matters—for example, corporal punishment in our school and the sanctity of our immigration laws? Will my right hon. and learned Friend not close his mind to our withdrawing from that rather ridiculous convention, whereby British issues are being decided by foreign judges who have no knowledge of our domestic affairs?

Mr. Brittan: It is certainly true that the jurisprudence of the Court is extended more broadly than was anticipated 20 years ago. However, the fact is that we are bound by the convention. The question of the right of individual petition is one that must be decided from time to time, and a decision on that will be taken before January 1986.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it the Government's view that this decision should be debated by the House?

Mr. Brittan: I understand the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question to be that he thinks that it should be decided by this House. I shall communicate that view to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Stanbrook: Instead of accepting the pious platitudes which are so beloved of continental lawyers who know nothing about our system, would it not be desirable for my right hon. and learned Friend to consider a review of all our existing legislation and an examination of whether our machinery for the redress of grievances is adequate? If our legislation could be overhauled so that there was no real criticism of it, there would be no need for individual petition.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend seeks to set me a Herculean task. I am not sure that I would respond to that challenge in a positive way.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Home Secretary confirm that he fully accepts the last decision of the European Court of Human Rights regarding sexual discrimination in our immigration rules? When does he propose to respond to that decision?

Mr. Brittan: I made it clear at the time of the decision that we would take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that we were complying with the convention as interpreted by the Court. I hope to announce our plans for doing so shortly.

Voluntary Service Unit

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had on the level of funding allocated to the voluntary service unit.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): None, Sir.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that there is a great need for co-operation between Departments, and especially with the Department of the Environment, about the urban programme, so that voluntary bodies concerned about the effects of the Government's policies on capital and revenue spending on local voluntary bodies can be taken into account?
Is it not difficult for voluntary bodies to find their way through the maze of differing grants from Departments — for example, section 64 grants from the DHSS as well as the voluntary service unit. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take the lead in bringing together the


various Departments to assist voluntary bodies to find the best way of obtaining grants for their capital and revenue needs?

Mr. Waddington: The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question go far wider than the main question. I take his point, but there is an inter-ministerial committee, which I head, which discusses how we can best deal with and respond to the needs of voluntary organisations. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind.

Police Car Accidents

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the deaths and serious accidents resulting from police car accidents.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): A road accident involving serious injury or loss of life, whether to police officers, members of the public, suspects or criminals being pursued, is always tragic and a matter for great regret. Police drivers are trained to a high standard, and it is a basic tenet of training that no emergency is so urgent as to justify an accident.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that there is a conflict about the number of accidents that have occurred, in that there have been between 20 and 30 deaths in the past 12 months as a result of accidents within the terms of the question? They are all tragic. Is it not time for a full inquiry into police processes to ascertain whether they always follow the rules which they are given and must observe in chases? Can other measures be taken, such as making the public more willing to secure their cars, to try to prevent many of these accidents happening?

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the co-operation of the public, which I fully endorse. The central statistics cover all accidents from the slightest to those involving injury or death. In 1983 there were 17,000 accidents, from the slightest to the most important. I have asked that we maintain central records of accidents involving serious injury or death. The Metropolitan police figures show that in 1984 there were no accidents following emergency calls, and I suspect that that is an improvement.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are relieved to hear him say that the same laws apply to the police and to the fire brigade as to anyone else? Is he further aware that in my constituency last weekend four people's lives were written off by the fire brigade going to a fire in a warehouse and not to them? Surely it is not fair to leave these decisions to the drivers of police or fire brigade vehicles. They tend to do what they are told, as they should. Should not the police and the fire brigade adopt the view that drunks, break-ins and warehouse fires are not as important as saving the lives of innocent people? Surely the time has come for the police not to speed just to stop a drunk, when innocent lives are often lost.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is straying a little far in assuming that the police have such precision of knowledge in relation to the person they are pursuing and that fire brigades have similar knowledge about the incidents to which they are called. I accept that the House—my hon. Friend is not alone in being concerned—recognizes

that in any pursuits, whether the police are pursuing a vehicle which may have been stolen or which may or may not be driven by a drunken person, they have a hazardous task. It is our duty and their duty to ensure that they do not hazard life.

Mr. Soley: I welcome the Minister's commitment to more accurate figures in future. Many people are deeply disturbed about the numbers of accidents, and the Policy Studies Institute has much to say about the possible reasons for them. The police training manual states that no accident and no call is so urgent as to justify an accident. Is the Minister saying that that manual is to be reconsidered and rewritten? Will he give a commitment to the House that the manual will be maintained, that an inquiry will be made into accidents which take place, and that the Government will tell the House what they intend to do in the light of the inquiry?

Mr. Shaw: No hon. Member, least of all myself, would be able to act as a judge in relation to the many incidents to which the police are required to respond. Many which are thought to be in the emergency category turn out in due course not to be of that nature. However, all the police respond to a given call. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to maintain the highest possible standards in training and execution, and that must mean taking better note of the statistics to which we have been referring.

Litter

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of convictions for offences under the Litter Acts for each year since 1983; and if he will indicate separately the number of convictions which resulted from the institution of proceedings by the police.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): In 1983, the last year for which figures are available, there were 1,685 convictions under the Litter Acts, of which 1,640 followed prosecutions by the police.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is up to the police to enforce these Acts? One cannot expect a refuse collector or street cleaner to effect a citizen's arrest of someone throwing litter around. Does he also agree that there ought to be many more prosecutions of and stinging fines on people who are making our country one of the dirtiest in Europe? We are in danger of winning that award. The sooner we do something about it the better, because many people are fed up to the back teeth with wading ankle-deep through beer cans, fish and chips wrappers, newspapers and the like.

Mr. Mellor: From what my hon. Friend has said, I appreciate that there is a great deal of support for the proposition that we would do well to become a much cleaner country. The Government share that view, and the Department of the Environment supports the Keep Britain Tidy group and others whose aspirations are entirely in line with what my hon. Friend has said.
The use of the police must be a matter for the priorities drawn up by chief constables. It would be quite wrong for us to insist upon the police taking a higher profile on litter


if it was done at the expense of burglaries and other street crimes which cause equal—I suspect greater—concern at the present time.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Do community service orders cover the collection of litter?

Mr. Mellor: I cannot say whether there is a community service scheme that does. I suspect not, because the collection of litter is part of the duties of local authorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend has some ideas to that effect. The aim of the community service scheme is to provide useful community work, and that would seem to be a candidate.

Crime

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any further proposals to reduce the incidence of crime.

Mr. Brittan: The various preventive and other measures which we are taking under my crime strategy hold out the best prospect of reducing crime. We shall continue to pursue them vigorously. In particular, I am encouraged by the 11 per cent. fall in domestic burglaries in January to March this year, compared with the same period last year, in the police areas covered by the "Magpies" crime prevention campaign. This compares with a 0·7 per cent. increase elsewhere.

Mrs. Clywd: How many men compared with women received prison sentences in the last year for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has figures available? Can he explain why far heavier doses of behaviour-controlling drugs are given to women in Holloway than to men in any male prison.

Mr. Brittan: I do not have the figures to hand, but I shall write to the hon. Lady and give them to her.

Mr. Marlow: What would be the likely effect on the level of crime if the Miners' Amnesty (General Pardon) Bill in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) were to be passed, given that the burden of that Bill is that people will be entitled to commit murder provided it is in pursuit of objectives that are central to those of the national executive of the Labour party?

Mr. Brittan: The passage of that Bill would totally undermine confidence in the rule of law. Indeed, its introduction casts severe doubt on the commitment to the rule of law of those who favour it.

Mr. Janner: In his efforts to reduce crime, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman place importance on the presence on the roads of motorised vehicles, panda cars and motor cycles? If so, is it true, as I have heard, that instructions have this week gone out from the Metropolitan police to highway patrols and other motorised units to reduce the amount of mileage covered by each vehicle, other than in emergencies, by an enormous amount—in some cases as high as 20 per cent.? If that order has gone out, will the Home Secretary take steps to see that it is revoked?

Mr. Brittan: Many people regard the move to have policemen on foot as opposed to being in panda cars as one to be encouraged. Of course cars have an important role, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too anxious about reducing the number of cars in the

Metropolitan police area when he takes into account the fact that 50 million miles of car driving by the police took place last year.

Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that pilot schemes involving the interviewing of suspects being tape-recorded, such as we have in Leicester, have been very successful? Early police misgiving has been overcome. Does he also agree that this contributes to a reduction in the incidence of crime? Can he give the House an indication of when the pilot schemes will be extended?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. I have not seen the Leicester scheme, but I have seen and spoken to those involved in a similar scheme in another part of the country. The schemes are extremely encouraging. I think that they will avoid damaging and untrue accusations being made against the police, save police and court time, and lead to more pleas of guilty. The knowledge that the criminal justice system will be improved in that way will be beneficial. I cannot give dates as to when the scheme will be extended, but of course my hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the commitment to do so in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the Home Secretary expect crime rates to fall to the level at which they were when the Labour Government left office?

Mr. Brittan: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the average annual increase in total recorded offences went up in the 10 years to 1984 by about 6 per cent. As there has been a steady increase in crime since the early years of this century, he will realise that the question is rhetorical.

Licensing Laws

Mr. Robert B. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following his statement of 6 June on the licensing laws.

Mr. Mellor: Since 6 June we have received four letters from hon. Members on behalf of constituents and six from members of the public. Of the 10, five supported relaxations in the law relating to permitted opening hours and five were against any change which extended the present closing time of public houses. Ministers have derived great benefit from this correspondence.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does that not confirm that constituents make representations direct to their Members of Parliament rather than to his Department? When can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the licensing privileges enjoyed by hon. Members will be applied to ordinary members of the public?

Mr. Mellor: That matter has been under consideration for some time. I hope that it will be possible to make a decision on it when we have finally evaluated the report on the Scottish survey, which has considered the situation prevailing in Scotland where licensing hours are much more generous.

Mr. Alexander: Does not the current tourist season emphasise the enormous need for a relaxation of the licensing laws? Would it not benefit not only tourists but


our wine industry and the British people themselves if we were to have a sensible relaxation? My hon. Friend has referred to the Scottish experiment. When will we have official figures about what is happening there?

Mr. Mellor: I hope that the figures will become available by the autumn, although it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, not for me. There is a strong case for doing this. My hon. Friend has made the point compellingly. Other hon. Members feel equally strongly that the problems of alcohol abuse are such that any change in licensing hours should be the subject of the most careful evaluation. That was the view of the Expenditure Committee when it considered the matter in 1977. We shall try to make progress after we have had a chance to consider the Scottish report, which should shed light on what I regard as a difficult matter.

Mr. Maclennan: Do the Government hope to legislate on the subject in this Parliament?

Mr. Mellor: That is not a matter for me.

Prison Medical Service

Mr. Galley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the prison medical service.

Mr. Mellor: Yes, Sir, although we recognise the need for improvement in some areas.

Mr. Galley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the growing evidence of the inadequacy of the treatment and facilities available to the prison medical service? Is he further aware of the great concern of the Select Committee on Social Services in its recent inquiry into the misuse of drugs, in which evidence was received that the only treatment available to many drug addicts in prison was cold turkey and that the clinical guidance to prison medical officers was not being implemented? Will he assure the House that further steps will be taken to include treatment for drug addicts and the implementation of the clinical guidance?

Mr. Mellor: The basis upon which medical officers operate in prison is no different from the basis upon which doctors operate in the community. They use their clinical judgment. It is not for us to issue diktats to that effect. However, we wish to ensure that we have a properly resourced and highly competent and proficient prison medical service. As I acknowledged in my initial reply, there is always room for improvement. We shall look at the Select Committee's report and see whether it is on the right track. We shall make our response in due course.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the prison medical service refuses to pass on medical information about prisoners when they leave its care? The medical records of one of my constituents who committed suicide in a National Health Service hospital had not been transferred from the prison medical service. Does he agree that that is unacceptable, that it serves nobody's interests and that it can severely affect the care of patients?

Mr. Mellor: It would be wrong of me to comment upon an individual case about which I had not heard until the hon. Gentleman raised it. If he cares to write to me about it, I shall look into it. The same rules apply to the

transfer of a prisoner from one doctor's list to another as apply to the generality of the community. If there is evidence that the normal rules are not being applied, I shall want to look at it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me know.

Sir John Farr: I recognise the skill and expertise of the prison medical service, but can my hon. Friend confirm that in a special case where a certain skill is required from outside the service there is no hesitation about obtaining it?

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because it shows the care with which the prison medical service approaches its task. A panel of outside consultants is available to see prisoners. No fewer than 98,000 referrals to external consultants were made in the last year for which figures are available, 1983. That shows just how much care is exercised.

Mrs. Renée Short: If the Under-Secretary of State is satisfied with the prison medical service, he must be about the only chap who is. Is he aware that the British Medical Association has received an enormous number of complaints from prisoners and former prisoners about the way that they have been treated in prison? The Select Committee intends to look at the prison medical service. I hope that we shall get a better response from him when it does.

Mr. Mellor: I do not think I made the remark that has been attributed to me by the hon. Lady. However, I am satisfied that the prison medical service is provided with better resources and is better able to cope with the demands of the prison population than it was in the days when the Labour Government were in office.

Peacock Committee

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Peacock committee intends to publish an interim report on the progress of its inquiry into the financing of the BBC.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Such questions are for the committee to decide, but my right hon. and learned Friend has not asked for an interim report; nor, I understand, does the committee at present anticipate producing one.

Mr. Freud: Is the Minister of State aware of the damage that is done both to the BBC and to ITV by uncertainty about their future funding and markets? What makes him believe that Peacock will be able to reach a decision so very much more quickly than Annan on the same sort of problem? Will he assure the House that the committee has sufficient finance to allow it to look at the effects on public service broadcasting when it has to compete for commercial revenue?

Mr. Shaw: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the committee has not been asked to make a decision. It is being asked to provide a range of options for my right hon. and learned Friend in relation to possible alternative sources of finance. In that respect the committee is quite unlike the Annan committee, which was required to take a broad view of broadcasting issues. The committee is on schedule to report by the beginning of next year. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's view that there is uncertainty, but I remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend recommended, and the the House accepted, a licence settlement which could have a three-year reign.

Mr. Brinton: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, rather than contemplate interim reports from the Peacock committee, we should look ahead to the report that is to come to Parliament, with Parliament and the Government then evolving for the first time a complete policy for public service broadcasting?

Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's view. He can rest assured that the options which are to be provided by the Peacock committee will undoubtedly lead to discussions. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will wish to involve the House at the appropriate stage.

Mr. Faulds: Does the Minister of State understand that many hon. Members will have little regard for whatever may be the findings of the Peacock committee, in view of the poor quality and subtle loading of its membership, in contradistinction to the excellent membership of the Annan committee?

Mr. Shaw: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's pre-emption of the quality of both the committee and its findings.

Mr. Stokes: In considering the financing of the BBC, will the committee take into account the enormous libel damages which the BBC is able to stand, which in the end fall on the taxpayer, and which mean that the BBC can libel anyone it wants to its heart's content?

Mr. Shaw: The point that my hon. Friend raises does not come within the terms of the committee's inquiry, which is confined to looking at options for financing, rather than at what the corporation might do with the money with which it is financed.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Why do the Government persist with this farce, when all the evidence shows clearly and convincingly that the introduction of even a small amount of advertising on the BBC would have serious financial consequences for the independent companies, could be potentially calamitous to independent local radio and regional newspapers and would lower programme standards both of the BBC and the independent companies? What is the ideological motivation for this vendetta on the part of the Government against the BBC?

Mr. Shaw: It stems from a not unnatural reluctance to accept the word of the hon. Gentleman as really being the fact in this issue. We have appointed a distinguished body of people to examine the actuality of the case and to offer different opinions on the options provided. In that way we shall arrive at a considered judgment, which, I am sure, is not the way in which the hon. Gentleman would like to see things happen.

London (Policing)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has held with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the likely impact of cash limits on policing in London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Brittan: I last met the Commissioner on 1 July, when we discussed recent developments in relation to terrorism and the Metropolitan police cash limit.

Mr. Hunt: If, as we are told, the purpose of cash limits is to facilitate tax cuts in due course, will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that the great majority of my constituents would much prefer even more resources being devoted to the Metropolitan police and even better protection for their homes and families than a penny off the standard rate of income tax?

Mr. Brittan: The purpose of cash limits is not what my hon. Friend said it was. It is to ensure that people live within their means, whatever those means are. The question of the level of resources that should be made available is a different matter. As the House will know, the level of resources made available to the Metropolitan police is higher than it has ever been, and rightly so.

Mr. Bruinvels: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that when he last met the Commissioner he found that morale in the Metropolitan police was extremely high, despite the carping and anti-police behaviour of the GLC police committee, which spends £1 million a year knocking the police all the time? Is it not a fact that the achievements of the Metropolitan police against terrorism have come about solely as a result of the police supporting the Prevention of Terrorism. Act, a measure which the Labour party never seems to have supported?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I do not believe that the police are put off their job for a single moment by the activities and antics of the GLC, which we discussed at some length last Friday. I welcome again the opportunity to congratulate the Metropolitan police and all the other police forces involved on their successes of the last couple of weeks in the campaign against terrorism. The Prevention of Terrorism Act has an important role and I hope that when these matters come to be considered again the Opposition will come to a wiser conclusion than has been the case in the last couple of years.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the persistent abuse, racial and obscene remarks and disruption levelled at speakers at Hyde Park, and clearly organised by some members of the Young Conservative movement in Greater London— [Interruption.]—will Ministers, and particularly the Prime Minister, make it clear to those Conservative activists who have only contempt for free speech and fair play that they should not act like storm troopers?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman's observations are a classic example of diversionary tactics brought about by his dislike of the fact that the GLC has been exposed for what it is.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend will of course be aware by now of the considerable concern caused by the enunciation by a chief inspector at Heathrow of the rather strange doctrine that a jocular remark has now become a criminal offence. Has this matter been discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, either previously or when my right hon. and learned Friend last met him?

Mr. Brittan: I did not discuss this matter with the metropolitan Police Commissioner when I met him on 1 July, but I have to say to my hon. Friend and to the House that I do not think that jokes in relation to bombs and terrorism can or should be treated lightly.

Mr. John David Taylor: When the Home Secretary discussed terrorism with the Commissioner, did he discuss the bomb that was found recently in the Rubens hotel, and was the Commissioner able to advise the Home Secretary from which country the detonators and explosive came?

Mr. Brittan: The answer to the first question is that I did discuss that bomb. The answer to the second question is that I cannot say anything further without being in breach of the sub judice rule.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Commissioner, will he thank him and all those who took part in the recent operations, and will he draw to his attention the fact that the Strathclyde police were able to——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman a warning. The question concerns London.

Mr. Bill Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the police who were involved in all these operations. The point I am making is that the terrorists were arrested under powers contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

Mr. Brittan: I think that my hon. Friend has in mind the fact that the Metropolitan police, in their recent operation, were working in co-operation with many other police forces. I would certainly be happy to specify in particular the Strathclyde force as one that played an extremely important part in the operation.

Miss Hilda Murrell

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a copy of the report of Assistant Chief Constable Peter Smith to the West Mercia police on the case of the late Miss Hilda Murrell; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Yes, Sir. Mr. Smith's findings, which he has now presented to the chief constable and to West Mercia police authority, confirm the unsubstantiated nature of the considerable speculation which has arisen in this case.

Mr. Dalyell: In my recent Adjournment debate I asked careful questions about Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Gary Murray. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] What is the Cabinet Secretary's connection with Zeus Security, outlined in the Daily Star of 13 June? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does Zeus Security use subcontractors for Government work, and is there truth in Mr. Murray's claim that he was recruited for duties with a specialist Government intelligence department——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced. He must not read his question.

Mr. Dalyell: I am framing the question extremely carefully. Was Mr. Murray recruited for duties with a specialist Government intelligence department on a consultancy basis?

Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Adjournment debate on 26 June, asked me 73 questions. I am not impugning one bit any of the hon. Gentleman's motives, but one of the questions related to the involvement in any way of British intelligence security, and the hon. Gentleman would know that that

was an issue raised in the Adjournment debate on 19 December 1984 as well as in the Adjournment debate on 26 June this year. The hon. Gentleman received a categorical answer from me that in fact Sir Robert Armstrong had been involved in the investigations conducted by Assistant Chief Constable Smith, and I gave the categorical assurance, which Mr. Smith has now endorsed, that there was not a shred of evidence that British security operations were in any way involved in this affair.

Immigration (Primary Purpose Rule)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider amending the primary purpose rule.

Mr. Waddington: The Government see at present no need to amend the primary purpose rule. This rule and the other requirements for men seeking entry on the basis of marriage are necessary safeguards against the use of marriage to secure admission by those who would not otherwise qualify to come.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that this rule probably causes more anguish and heartache than any other rule of immigration policy? Should not an immediate change be made to allow these husbands-to-be to come and join their prospective wives in this country?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the vast majority of people in this country realise that it would be absurd, after having said that no young men should be able to come here without skills and go straight on to the labour market at a time of high unemployment, if we allowed the same young men to come here by using marriage as a device.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that the difficulty with the primary purpose rule, which causes so much anguish, is that it is not an objective test? It depends upon how an immigration officer feels. People trying to enter this country cannot determine how to answer questions. I hope the Minister will accept that it is impossible for people trying to enter this country to prepare themselves for the kind of questions that might be asked. The rule is monstrously unfair because it does not take account of the different cultures and the genuine need that people have to come here to join their families, set up families and enjoy security.

Mr. Waddington: If it is so difficult to satisfy an entry clearance officer that one is entitled to enter as a husband, is it not extraordinary that over half the husbands who apply for entry are granted permission to come here?

Mr. Proctor: Has my hon. Friend noticed how the vast majority of the Opposition always want to increase immigration, when the vast majority of people in this country want to see it decreased?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure my hon. Friend is correct when he says that the vast majority of people in this country know well that we must have firm immigration control. The Government stand by that, and I can imagine nothing more irresponsible than the statements that have been coming from the Opposition Front Bench that if they came into office they would repeal the Immigration Act 1971.

Mr. Dubs: The Minister used the expression "marriage as a device." Will he make it clear that we are talking


about genuine marriages, where the primary purpose rule is used merely by Home Office and Foreign Office officials to pry into the motives for a marriage and make an arbitrary decision to exclude husbands? Will he confirm that we are talking about marriages which are, in all respects, genuine and proper?

Mr. Waddington: We are talking about marriages where the primary purpose of the person applying is to get here. I repeat what I have said. It is an abuse of the institution of marriage if people enter into marriages merely to enter a country such as ours.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Later.

Metropolitan Police (Expenditure)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on the Metropolitan police in real terms in 1969, 1974, 1979 and 1984; what is the projected expenditure for 1985; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brittan: The force's provisional outturn for 1985–86 is £726·1 million. This compares in real terms with £382·5 million in 1969–70, £508·7 million in 1974–75 and £579·4 million in 1979–80. The force's cash limit for 1985–86 is £763·2 million.

Mr. Greenway: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on those splendid figures? Does he agree that it is clear that it is Conservative Governments who put real resources into fighting crime, including terrorism, in the metropolis, but that it is the Labour party which always knocks the police and starves them of the resources necessary to do the job?

Mr. Brittan: That is entirely true. The only addition I would make is that it is not just in the metropolis that we have provided the resources.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary explain, therefore, why, with all the additional resources being pumped into the Metropolitan police, the crime rate in London has continued to increase?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the answer that I gave earlier about the trend over a long period of time. The lower increase recorded in the country as a whole in the first quarter — a small fall when normal seasonal variations are allowed for — is mildly encouraging.

Scotland (Licensing Laws)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the implications for policy towards changes in the licensing laws in England and Wales of the recent Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' report on drinking habits in Scotland.

Mr. Mellor: We have received no representations relating to the recent OPCS report.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware of the high level of satisfaction among Scottish people with their present licensing laws? Does he think that there is a similar level of satisfaction in England and Wales, and how can he justify the fact that the licensing laws are more liberal in Scotland?

Mr. Mellor: All the opinion polls have been so busy in Brecon that it is hard to give a conclusive view, but I am aware that there is a case for changing the law and we have it under very active consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hirst: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven new production records have recently been established by the steel workers at Ravenscraig and that this plant has achieved a British Steel Corporation productivity record of 3·14 man hours per tonne? Will she join me in welcoming those achievements by a management and work force which, despite all the difficulties of the past 15 months, have steadfastly concentrated on improving the productivity of that plant?

The Prime Minister: I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the workers of Ravenscraig on that magnificent record and on the way in which they kept going during the miners' strike.

Mr. Faulds: Will the Prime Minister take time today to consider a matter that has already been discussed at Question Time? That is the Prime Purpose rule. Does she accept that the prime purpose of marriage is procreation? That being so, does she agree that it is utterly iniquitous that men, who have produced babies by women entitled to live in this country, and have gone through the marital rites, are not allowed to join their wives and families in this country and become British citizens?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a very limited idea of marriage.

Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that small, new and growing firms have played a significant role in the improved unemployment figures announced today, but that they still face many obstacles and burdens despite the Government's valiant efforts to remove them? Will she do all that she can to speed up the review of those burdens so that they can be removed?

The Prime Minister: Small firms have an excellent record, especially in creating new jobs. We are looking at the regulations which still obtain and I hope that the results of that scrutiny will be published before the summer recess.

Mr. Kinnock: I welcome the downturn in unemployment trends, small though it is, but does the Prime Minister recall saying five weeks ago that she was
concerned, mystified and very disappointed
that unemployment was still so high? In view of that feeling on her part, has she any new policies to announce today which will ensure that the small fall in unemployment is accelerated and greatly increased in the coming months?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the small downturn. He will be


aware that a major new policy was announced in the Budget, and further details were given this week, of the extension of the youth training scheme to two years. It is a matter of great regret that the Opposition carped and criticised instead of welcoming that great help to our young people.

Mr. Kinnock: That does not change the fact that today's fall in the unemployment figures is rather small and shaky. We should not have to wait until the Budget takes full effect, as there is so much else that the Prime Minister could do. There is plenty of work to do and plenty of people who want to do it. Why does the right hon. Lady not do the sensible thing and bring them together? If she wants to start a real recovery, why does she not listen to the managers and business men, who are telling her to stop getting rid of the investment allowances, to sponsor new public investment and to get interest rates down?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman is recommending is reflation. On another occasion, he would be criticising the level of inflation. He really must make up his mind.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I join the whole-hearted welcome for the fall in unemployment. Is my right hon. Friend aware that only 499,000 of those currently unemployed have taken the trouble to register at a jobcentre? Will she take urgent steps to reform the unemployment accounting system and the statistics so that only those who are genuinely seeking work figure in the statistics?

The Prime Minister: These unemployment statistics are compiled on exactly the same basis as previous unemployment statistics. The last change in the way in which the statistics were compiled was made in 1981, for reasons which were given then. We are anxious to secure employment for those on the unemployment register who are genuinely seeking work.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dobson: Is the Prime Minister proud or ashamed of the fact that at the end of the United Nations Decade for Women no fewer than 93,000 women in England and Wales are awaiting gynaecological operations in hospital and that more than 18,000 of them have been waiting for treatment for more than a year?

The Prime Minister: There has been a tremendous improvement in the National Health Service under this Government. I will gladly compare our record with that of the last Labour Government, who, when they were in financial difficulty, had to cut the NHS and cut capital expenditure on it.

Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read this month's Country Landowner, in which full details are given of a proposed ten-minute Bill to be introduced by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) which would nationalise four fifths of agricultural land? In view of the fact that, at Brecon and Radnor at the weekend the Leader of the Opposition said that there was no prospect of Labour nationalising agricultural land, is not the so-called unity of the Labour party about which we are told a sham and purely for the electors?

The Prime Minister: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I have not had time to read that journal. I join him in believing that the Labour party will never have a chance to put those policies into operation.

Mr. John Morris: Has the message reached the Prime Minister that the number of people who admire her in the constituency of Brecon and Radnor are of a somewhat endangered species? Is she now minded, at this late hour, to send a message of cheer to the hapless Conservative candidate by announcing her resignation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that we often have Bills to protect endangered species.

Mr. Freeman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Freeman: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the statement from the National Coal Board confirming investment in new pits and the creation of 7,000 new jobs? Is that not the constructive way to proceed in the industry, rather than with the threats of a massive pay claim that are coming out of Sheffield?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Government's policy has been to build a profitable coal industry by making excellent investment in profitable pits. That is the way to provide security of jobs in a future profitable industry, and that way is firmly endorsed by the majority of our people.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the recent report from Companies House showing that more than 300,000 companies out of an active list of about 800,000 are disobeying the law by failing to return their annual accounts? Since the Prime Minister is so fond of preaching about the rule of law and its observance by us all, what is she doing about those companies?

The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for enforcement. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that trade unions are not quick to return their accounts.

Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen the policy of the Leader of the Opposition for reducing unemployment, in which he said that he would keep children at school for much longer and retire people much earlier, without producing one extra new job? Does that not show that the Labour party's policies are an absolute farce?

The Prime Minister: The Labour party's policies consist of spending more money but not knowing where it will come from. I note that in the book "Inside the Treasury", published after the election, Lord Barnett, then Joel Barnett, said:
The Labour Government of 74–79 had a financial task rendered impossible by pledges foolishly made without any serious thought as to where the money would come from… You name it, we were pledged to increase it.

Mr. Gould: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gould: Does the Prime Minister recognise that each 1 per cent. reduction in the inflation rate since she came to office has been bought at the cost of 750,000 jobs destroyed? However unlikely her target of 3 per cent. inflation now appears to be, can she tell us how many more jobs she would be prepared to sacrifice to reach that target?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is no such trade-off — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is no such trade-off in the longer run. If he is seeking to increase inflation to the Labour Government's record of 27 per cent., let him say so now.

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend close the loophole in the Trade Union Act 1984, which allows Mr. Arthur Scargill to preserve his life presidency of the NUM by dint of depriving himself of his casting vote? Will she thus stop this petty dictator treating democracy with a contempt more reminiscent of ancient Rome than of modern Britain? Let there be a ballot now in the NUM. Let it be statutorily enforced and let it be conducted preferably by secret postal ballot, which the militants fear most of all.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point very vigorously, and I have taken note of it. I hope that others will, too.

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments go.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no independent action by British Airways to boycott Beirut airport without concerted action by the seven states meeting next week to discuss ways of preventing hijacking by terrorists?

The Prime Minister: British Airways does not fly into Beirut. We agree with the Bonn convention, which called

for a suspension of air services to countries which fail to take action against hijackers. We are now considering whether we should boycott Beirut airport completely by refusing to take aircraft that have come from Beirut. We shall seek to do so in the first place through the Bonn meeting next week.

Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware that, earlier today, a group of Liverpool parents protested outside the offices of Liverpool education authority about the cynical manipulation of their children? Is she aware that last night children as young as six years were given political propaganda to take home advocating defiance of the law? Does she agree that the misuse of children in that way——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this the Prime Minister's responsibility?

Mr. Alton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because the breaking of the law in Liverpool and the making of an illegal rate in defiance of Government legislation must damage the interests of local people and Liverpool ratepayers.

The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's grave concern about the misuse of children. I understand that many complaints have been made. Such activity will come within the remit of the Widdecombe inquiry. I hope that the matter has been referred to it.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Lady ignore the utter rubbish and nonsense from the Liberal Benches in this connection?
What contribution does the right hon. Lady think she made when she went on Mexican TV, which was well reported in Liverpool and elsewhere following the Brussels tragedy, and said that the people of Liverpool were violent and that Liverpool was a violent city, and had been for a long time? How can denigrating our people attract industry to Merseyside?

The Prime Minister: I hope the hon. Gentleman can explain how the behaviour of the present local authority can attract industry to the area — [Interruption.] The urban development corporation is attracting help for Merseyside, but the difficult local authority is doing nothing to help the creation of jobs there.

Teachers' Dispute

Mr. Giles Radice: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' dispute following the failure of the management panel of the Burnham committee to put any proposal to the teachers' panel.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): We are all surely very unhappy that this long dispute continues. I intensely want to see pupils receiving uninterrupted education, but the Government have wide economic obligations and are not willing to make extra resources available for teachers' pay unless those extra resources would be used to make progress towards our objectives for improving educational standards. That means improving promotion prospects and giving better rewards to good quality teachers.
Last July—a year ago—I made plain my willingness to help progress in this area. On 21 May this year I made plain the Government's willingness to provide extra resources for teachers' pay next year for this purpose. I repeated that offer in meetings with the employers' associations on 24 June and 1 July and in a letter to the teachers on 2 July.
Both employers and teachers were well aware of the Government's position before yesterday's requisitioned meeting. They also know that I stand ready to join in discussions to make the progress which is so urgent and necessary—given the October deadline for decisions on the rate support grant settlement—if we are not again to miss the chance of reforming the pay structure.

Mr. Radice: Why did the Secretary of State instruct his officials to wreck yesterday's Burnham committee meeting? Why did he use his 15 block votes against a peace proposal supported by 19 of the 24 elected representatives?
Does he understand that his high-handed behaviour has so angered local authority associations that the Burnham machinery is on the point of collapse? Will he admit that the only constructive talks that are now taking place are outside Burnham — those between the Labour-led employers and the teachers' representatives — and that that is no thanks to him? Is he aware that he is starving schools of resources, has demoralised teachers and is doing his best to undermine any chance of ending the turmoil in our schools? Why is the Secretary of State such a wrecker? For the sake of our children, he should resign before he does any more damage.

Sir Keith Joseph: These are very strong words. The hon. Gentleman is speaking as if my representatives voted down some substantive offer. It was not like that at all. The House should know that what was being discussed was whether a joint meeting of teachers and employers with me should be sought. Both sides have known very well for months that I am intensely willing to see them. My representatives opposed the addition to the request for a meeting of words which run utterly contrary to what I have repeated time and again to be the Government's objectives and decisions. No joint request to meet me was being voted upon. What was being voted upon was

whether certain words should be added to a request for a meeting. The House knows that I stand eagerly ready to meet both sides of Burnham should they wish to talk to me.

Mr. David Madel: As the Government have said that they will make additional resources available for 1986–87, including an expanded network of in-service training, should not the teacher unions accept the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service's offer of informal talks to reach the goal of an improved and new salary structure and an improved education service?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is surely on the right constructive lines, but I must emphasise that the teachers, led by the National Union of Teachers, have refused to negotiate the offer to make extra funds available to meet the Government's objectives of better promotion prospects and better standards in schools since last year. They are still refusing to consider at all, let alone seriously, the renewed and repeated offer that I made in my letter of 21 May and which I repeated to the employers' association last week and to the teachers a couple of days ago by letter.
There is ample opportunity for teachers to secure the improved career prospects that they understandably want, if only they will get down to serious discussion of the 21 May letter—and in time to catch the October deadline, if extra money is to be put for that purpose in to the rate support grant settlement this year for next year.

Mr. Clement Freud: For how much longer will teachers be expected to put up with pay rises below the rate of inflation when their job is getting increasingly difficult and everybody is expecting more? If the press leak of a 2 per cent. availability is untrue, how much money, on agreement with the teachers, will be available?

Sir Keith Joseph: I accept that, in many places and under many conditions, the teaching job these days is extremely difficult. I have accepted that for a long time. However, I ask the House to realise that universal indexing is the road to further inflation and thus to more unemployment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time for restructuring Burnham has come as it is no longer capable of handling the affairs of the great teaching profession? Is he aware that there are schools where there have been no parental meetings and no reports for perhaps three years? Is it not disgraceful that strikes are so damaging children's education? They will never recover. Worse, Labour party spokesmen go all over the country encouraging the strike and damaging children.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am willing to be convinced that there is a better method than Burnham to arrange these affairs, but even if the Government were so convinced, legislation would be needed and there would inevitably be a delay before legislation could be introduced. While my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was asking his question, I heard the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) talking about the use of the veto from a sedentary position. I must remind the House that the veto was not used yesterday and that it was introduced when a Labour Government were in office. The hon. Gentleman ought to bear that in mind.

Mr. Ken Weetch: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the Burnham negotiating machinery has


been creaking at the joints for years? Does he further agree that instead of being a negotiating body it now resembles a Gilbert and Sullivan opera? Will he use his influence to ensure that the realities of the position appear in the negotiating machinery, in that the Government are the paymasters? It should reflect just that.

Sir Keith Joseph: But that is precisely what was intended to be reflected by the veto arrangements introduced when the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. Roy Galley: No doubt my right hon. Friend will disregard the extravagant words of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). As we say in Yorkshire, he rattles like a "can o' mabs" and there is nowt much inside.
While acknowledging the difficulty of persuading the teachers' unions to negotiate seriously about teacher assessment and improving standards, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider going further, as a long-term objective, and offer the union a little more money and a pay review body system in return for a no-disruption agreement?

Sir Keith Joseph: Those are propositions which, in the right context and circumstances, might deserve consideration. However, at the moment the teachers are unwilling even to address themselves to the serious offer made in my letter of 21 May. I would have thought that the whole House was united in seeking the better promotion and career prospects for teachers of quality and better schooling for our children.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even Conservative-controlled authorities are now so worried about the damage being done to children's education and the morale of the teaching profession that they have urged that negotiations take place within Burnham leading to an adequate salary increase for teachers? An example of that is the Conservative-controlled borough of Trafford. Those authorities look to the Secretary of State as the only person who can break the deadlock by accepting the need for a pay increase and by agreeing to fund it when it comes.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is repeating a request that, time and again, I have refused. The Government are not willing to make more money

available, except to make progress towards the Government's objectives of better promotion prospects, a better career structure for teachers and more effective education in our schools.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. Friend has fallen into the inadvertent error of referring to teachers when he means the teachers' union representative on the Burnham committee. Will he write to individual teachers and governors of schools — as the Secretary of State for Social Services did in the recent dispute over prescriptions — so that the teachers and governors know what my right hon. Friend is offering, which is a very fair offer?

Sir Keith Joseph: As is often the case, I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I do fall — especially when trying to speak briefly in the House — into the error of assuming that all teachers agree with teachers' asssociation leaders. On my hon. Friend's suggestion of a letter to all teachers, I have seriously considered that possibility, but I am not the employer of the teachers. However, I take my hon. Friend's idea seriously.

Mr. James Callaghan: While the Minister's sincerity is obvious, as he has utterly failed to secure the co-operation of school teachers, should he not consider making way for a successor?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is all very well the right hon. Gentleman courteously and gently putting that proposition, but I am convinced that the country and most teachers accept the Government's purpose of better education in our schools. I have taken the steps that should enable teachers and employers to get down to negotiations, to secure the additional public funding that is on offer for next year.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that it would be a tragedy if the impasse were to continue any longer. Is not the only answer for the teachers to put to the test what my right hon. Friend has said and agree to discuss salaries together with future prospects in teaching as a possible way out?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY 9 JULY — Progress on Report stage of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY Jo JuLY—Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY II JULY — Estimates Day (3rd Allotted Day). The Estimates for consideration will appear in the Official Report. It is proposed that there will be a debate on Estimates relating to housing and environmental matters followed by a debate on Estimates relating to community care and the mentally ill and handicapped.
FRIDAY I2 JULY — There will be a debate on the reports of the House of Commons (Services) Committee 1984–85 on "Members' Staff: Pressure on Accommodation and Facilities", House of Commons Paper 195 and "Information Technology: Members' Requirements", House of Commons Paper 97. The debate will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 15 JULY—Opposition Day (18th Allotted Day) (Second Part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the leader of the Liberal party; subject of debate to be announced.
Remaining stages of the Oil and Pipelines Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Trustee Savings Banks Bill.
[Estimates to be considered:
Class VII, Vote 1 (Housing, England (Department of the Environment)).
Class VII, Vote 2 (Housing Corporation, Rent Acts and Miscellaneous Administration (Department of the Environment)).
Class VIII, Vote 2 (Central Environmental Services, etc.)
Class VIII, Vote 3 (Derelict Land Reclamation, Urban Programme and Urban Development Corporations, England).
Class VIII, Vote 5 (Central Administration and Environmental Research (Department of the Environment)).
Class XIV, Vote 1 (Civil Accommodation Services (PSA of the Department of the Environment)).
Class XI, Vote I (Hospital, Community Health and Other Services, England):
Subhead A1 (Current Advances to and Payments on Behalf of Health Authorities) so far as it relates to community care, with special reference to adult mentally ill and mentally handicapped people.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We deeply resent the haste with which the Government propose to rush through the consideration of the Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill. The fact that the supplementary guillotine is to be used is strong evidence of the Government's disarray on the issue both in the House and elsewhere. The Bill is an affront to the democratic rights of millions in the metropolitan counties

and the Greater London area. Surely it justifies much longer time for consideration in this place. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that further.
I have asked on a number of occasions for a debate during Government time on the so-called star wars initiative. In the light of Vice-President Bush's visit this week and the welcome news of an East-West summit in the autumn, I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to ensure that we have time to give consideration to the strategic defence initiative before the House rises for the summer recess.
When the debate takes place on Thursday on the Estimates on community care, the mentally ill and handicapped, will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that the Minister makes a statement suspending the changes in the board and lodging allowances, which will impoverish and endanger the old and chronically disabled who have gone into private residential homes since 30 April?
Finally, I asked two months ago why we needed to wait until the autumn for a debate on televising the proceedings of the House. I reinforce my demand that we should have that debate before the summer recess so that the televising of our proceedings could commence with the Queen's Speech next Session.

Mr. Biffen: I shall start with the right hon. Gentleman's last question, which was almost enough in itself. The issue of the House resolving whether it wants to sanction an experimental period of television is one which requires a good deal of delicate touch. I do not believe that it would be prudent to try to secure a judgment to enable the opening of Parliament and the Queen's Speech to be the subject of television. It would be very much better if this matter continued to be discussed in the manner in which it has been hitherto. I hope the matter will be available for a Commons decision early in the new Session.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the board and lodging allowances went before the House earlier this week, but I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services the right hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter.
On the matter of a debate on the star wars initiative, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the House had a chance to make its views known on this topic during the two days recently devoted to the defence Estimates. I am quite happy that this matter should be considered further through the usual channels.
I am sorry to be mildly unhelpful over this next point, but it was claimed that precipitate haste had been shown by the Government over the Local Government Bill, and that inadequate attention had been given to it. I have to point out that in this House and in another place almost 350 hours will have been devoted it. The Lords amendments were notified to the House yesterday and the present arrangements are a reasonable and equitable means of trying to secure further consideration of the measure.

Mr. Robert Key: Could my right hon. Friend help with an important constitutional problem? This House will not be able to debate the possible withdrawal of the United Kingdom from UNESCO. The United Kingdom National Commission is the only one whose chairman is a Minister in the Government. This precludes the tabling of parliamentary questions on the


subject because the Minister will be presenting evidence to a Select Committee of the House. Can my right hon. Friend help us?

Mr. Biffen: I will most certainly look into that matter and I will be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Can the Minister give an assurance that the motion tabled by my hon. and right hon. Friends on the immigration rules affecting Tamils will be debated before we rise for the summer recess?

Mr. Biffen: That is certainly my intention.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the immense constitutional importance of the European Communities (Finance) Bill, will the Leader of the House make a statement next week indicating whether he considers that this Bill should be considered in the other place, and could he give us some indication of how these things are decided and what considerations are taken into account?

Mr. Biffen: The Bill was left in such a state that its Committee stage has not yet been concluded, and I am sure that points might arise on that.

Mrs. Renée Short: Can the Minister confirm that the second debate to take place on Thursday which arises from the Select Committee report on the care of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, for which I understand additional time has been allowed, is likely to start by about 6.30 in the evening?

Mr. Biffen: That is my understanding, but perhaps I could get in touch with the hon. Lady when I can ascertain it with more certainty.

Mr. Richard Holt: Would my right hon. Friend comment upon the fact that during Opposition Supply Days there has been virtually nobody on the Opposition Benches, front or back. In the light of that, will he consider revising the parliamentary timetable so as to afford more opportunity for Back Benchers on the Conservative side who are here in numbers on those occasions? Perhaps he could give us a debate on law and order, for which many of us have been asking for a long time.

Mr. Biffen: If I were to answer those enticing questions, it could only be in such a way as to exacerbate tempers which are already somewhat fragile in this month of July.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange next week for a statement to be made on how much the Government will dole out as a result of the top people's pay review board for judges and others? Will he affirm that the estimate is likely to be twice the Government's going rate for the rest of the country? These people are already earning more than £50,000 a year. So that there can be fair treatment, will he ensure that there will be another statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to follow the one on the top people's pay review board so that a proper comparison can be made about how the Government are treating those at the very top of our society in relation to those who are trying their level best to motivate kids at school, many of whom will not have the chance of a job when they leave?

Mr. Biffen: It is the job of the Leader of the House never to excite too much expectation of statements, but I shall nevertheless refer the hon. Gentleman's interest in such a statement to my relevant right hon. Friends.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that star wars is such an important and large subject that it cannot be covered by a general defence debate? As the Leader of the Opposition has suggested this as a subject for debate, would not it be more suitable to hold it in Opposition time?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will have noted that interesting proposition. As I have said, the opportunity to pursue it through the usual channels is available.

Mr. Don Dixon: Bearing in mind that the Government have refused to give time to debate the Select Committee report on the Transport Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for a debate on the Government's White Paper in response to that report? If we go along this dangerous road, we shall be conducting parliamentary business by correspondence course. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate, or is he afraid that the Secretary of State for Transport is so imcompetent that he could not justify the Bill?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that no provision has been made in next week's business for a debate on transport, and I cannot hold out hope of art early debate as we now enter the most congested period in the parliamentary year. None the less, I shall refer his anxieties and strictures to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read early-day motion 835?
[That this House notes with grave concern that the bankers, Morgan Grenfell and Company Limited were acting for both Arthur Bell and Sons plc and Guinness plc in the period immediately prior to the current takeover being launched; is further concerned at the consequence this may have for the Scottish financial institutions, the investors in Arthur Bell and Company plc and for the workers employed by that company; and believes this takeover should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.]
If so, is my right hon. Friend aware that the bankers mentioned in that motion have been working for one of the companies involved in the take-over of Arthur Bell and Sons? They have also been advising on that company's corporate and financial structure and other sensitive areas that would be invaluable to anyone else who wished to take it over. Sadly, this cast doubt on how self-regulatory bodies, such as the one operating in the City, work. That must be bad for the benefits that have accrued from the sound financial system that operates in this country. May we please have an early debate on this matter?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The City panel considered this potential conflict of interest, and we must assume that it was satisfied. I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, but this could well be a possible candidate for an Adjournment debate. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate in Government time.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Friday a High Court judge directed that the Home Secretary should reconsider the


case of a Tamil asylum-seeker whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to remove from this country? In his judgment, the judge described as inhuman the Government's policy towards Tamil asylum-seekers. At the very least, should not the Leader of the House insist on the Home Secretary making a statement about whether the Government will appeal against that decision or review their inhuman policy towards Tamil asylum-seekers? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that the matter is fully and urgently debated in the House so that the fear from which Tamils in this country, and those who wish to leave Sri Lanka suffer, can be properly discussed in the open?

Mr. Biffen: The best way to help the hon. Gentleman is to refer him to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Considering how unrepresentative the other place is when dealing with matters of this kind, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will adopt a very robust attitude to its amendments to the Local Government Bill?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the Government have behaved with commendable balance and judgment, and I do not think that my hon. Friend will be disappointed.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were very pleased that the Secretary of State for Defence was able to find time to attend defence Question Time this week, contrary to his practice in the past? However, the Secretary of State's answers were so arrogant and gratuitously insulting that many Opposition Members expect him to come back to the House and to apologise for his lack of politeness.

Mr. Biffen: I have to accuse the hon. Gentleman of being unduly sensitive, which is about the worst accusation one can make in this House.

Mr. Michael Fallon: May we have an early debate on public expenditure to allow my right hon. Friends to reaffirm their commitment to reducing as well as controlling the proportion it consumes of our national wealth?

Mr. Biffen: I feel uncomfortable that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is breathing down my neck as the surrogate Leader of the House. As my hon. Friend observes, we will take the Finance Bill next week and if my hon. Friend cannot make all his speeches on that occasion I know of none other which can be so accommodating.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State for Social Services make a statement next week about further cuts in housing benefit as reported in today's press? If so, will he be telling the House why such a statement was not included in his statement two weeks ago and how he can conceivably justify further cuts on the poor?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot enter into the merits of the argument contained in his premise. It would be a very unhappy day if we based

our business on what was contained in newspaper comment and speculation. I will of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point he makes.

Mr. James Couchman: In view of recent events in the middle east, and particularly the upsurge in international terrorism, and in order to give credence to the reports in today's press that there is to be a concerted effort against international terrorism, will my right hon. Friend grant a debate, perhaps on the Adjournment of the House, on the subject of terrorism?

Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's point. The subject is one of the most profound in topical importance, but I can see little prospect of a debate in Government time, although there are still opportunities left to Members to seek private debates in the weeks that remain.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman determine to delay as interminably as he can manage any consideration of the televising of the proceedings of this House, because if we were to proceed to televise the conduct of the House it would do enormous damage by the performance of some Members and would give a very bad impression of how Members conduct hours of responsible debate.

Mr. Biffen: I have no wish to enter into the controversy whether the House should or should not be televised. I have no wish to rescue the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition from the strictures of his hon. Friend. All I will say is that it has just the appropriate rate of expedition.

Mr. William O'Brien: Is the Leader of the House aware of the situation that has developed in some of our hospitals because of stress upon the nursing staff and the effect that that stress is having on some of the patients, caused in the main because of lack of staff and lack of resources for the National Health Service? Will he assure the House that there will be time to discuss the serious situation which is developing because of stress on nurses? Will he prevail upon the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services to make a statement that an inquiry will be held as to the causes of stress on nurses? Will he assure the House that something will be done to relieve that stress?

Mr. Biffen: I will pass the request for an inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As for the more general issue of a debate, on Thursday we will debate the mentally ill. Since mental health forms a very substantial fraction of the total Health Service, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his speech on that occasion.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 817.
[That this House, aware of the deep concern of the Merseyside Equal Opportunities Project, the Women's Education Centre, the Community Relations Council and the Liverpool Black Sisters, at the proposed deportation of Mrs. Mabel Achinihu with her two children, one aged four years and the other aged two months who were both born in England, notes that Mrs. Achinihu has worked in England since 1976, and on a return to Nigeria her husband was tragically killed in a road accident; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to show compassion by allowing this young family to remain in the United Kingdom.]
The motion is supported by more than 90 hon. Members. It deals with the proposed deportation of a young mother with two young babies, both born in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to receive a deputation to discuss this diabolical decision?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that the case is being reviewed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall bring to his attention the points which have just been raised.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As I intend to table an early-day motion on the subject, will the Leader of the House provide time next week to enable the Minister with responsibility for the disabled to explain to this House how the statement made to the Welsh Conservative party conference by the Secretary of State for Wales accords with the express desire of that Minister that public attitudes to the disabled should be altered by means of education, example and persuasion?

Mr. Biffen: It would be only courteous if I were to wait until I saw the terms of the early-day motion. Meanwhile, I will refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to the relevant Minister.

Mr. Max Madden: Has the Leader of the House seen the statement issued today by the House of Commons branch of the Association of Clerical, Technical and Supervisory Staffs which makes serious criticisms of the competence and impartiality of the inquiry into water contamination of the Norman Shaw South building? Will he seriously consider those criticisms and also the request for the early establishment of a wholly independent inquiry, which would involve trade union consultation?

Mr. Biffen: I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the inquiry, and I should like to make that amply clear, but I shall look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Leader of the House aware of the tremendous pressure which is building up in Strangeways prison in Manchester which now holds nearly twice as many people as it was originally designed for, including people on remand who are not guilty of any crime? Is he also aware that the prison officers there recently passed a motion of no confidence in the governor? Given that things have reached such a pitch, may we have an independent inquiry into events at the prison so that we can be assured that everything is satisfactory or, in the likely event that the prison officers still have some realistic grievances, that something is done to make things easier for them and for the inmates of the prison.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that such an inquiry would be the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to whom I will refer the points which have just been made.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4519/85, On the discharge of certain dangerous substances into water, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.— [Mr. Newbert]

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 6707/85, concerning the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues, and 4793/84, concerning sampling and analysis for the monitoring of foodstuffs for human consumption, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Neubert.]

OPPOSITION DAY

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Northern Ireland

Rev. Martin Smyth: I beg to move,
That this House invites the Government, in view of the destabilizing effect in Northern Ireland of conflicting unofficial reports consistently circulating in the Press, to bring its current discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic to an early termination and publish a White Paper setting out the several matters discussed and the conclusions reached.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The general concern of the motion is expressed in the caption,
Restoration of Stability in Northern Ireland.
It is therefore useful at least to be clear-headed about what we are thinking. The dictionary defines "stability" as,
stable, firmly fixed, or established, not easily to be moved or changed or destroyed.
We move the motion because it is the conviction and desire of the Ulster Unionist party and the people of Ulster at large that Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, as well as its institutions of government, should be stable. We recognise that Her Majesty's Government have tabled an amendment which raises the question whether the Government have contributed to stability.
Only last week we debated the Interim Period Extension Order. Does the very title itself knock the concept of stability when we talk about something being stable and fixed as we bring forward an interim period extension order? That in itself suggests that the purpose of the Government is not stability. In that debate the Secretary of State said that the identity of the Protestant community must be respected by both Governments. That was in keeping with a conclusion reached by the two Heads of Government. Last week, the Secretary of State said:
This, as the two Heads of Government agreed at Chequers, must be respected, as must the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland to retain its British identity and to remain a part of the United Kingdom."— [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81 c. 974.]
In that same week the Secretary of State added to instability in Northern Ireland by being insensitive towards Loyalist aspirations by curtailing traditional Protestant marches which have been held in the Province for centuries.
I want to put on record my own view, which reflects the view of my party and of many in the Province. We are not talking about restricting marches, like those which have taken place recently and which appear to be provocative. We are not saying that undisciplined parades should not be curtailed, but there should be a different judgment on marches that have taken place for at least a century and a half without the coat trailing that is so often referred to in these discussions.
Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of our party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), I met the Secretary of State. We emphasised the serious consequences of interfering with the expression of Loyalist regard for our place in the United Kingdom and our civil and religious liberty which we wish to uphold. We stressed the serious risks involved in banning or

curtailing traditional parades. We conveyed to the Secretary of State background information about certain localities. The Government did not seem to be fully aware of that information.
During the past week it has been stated that there has been no involvement of Dublin in the banning of parades. We have been assured that banning involves only the Government and that the rerouteing of parades is strictly a matter for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, it is not what is, but what appears to be, that matters. In our country the statement that Dublin has not been involved falls on deaf ears.
In a written answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said:
The Irish Government made representations about the control of a St. Patrick's Day parade in Portadown. Her Majesty's embassy in Dublin has explained that the control of parades is primarily a matter for the operational judgment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary."— [Official Report, 1 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 486.]
Perhaps some hon. Members know that many people in the Province feel deeply about parades. By and large the Loyalist community has observed the law.
A predecessor of mine, William Johnston of Ballykilbeg, was elected to Parliament in the late 1800s. Because the Orange men had abided by the law on party processions, which law was not being enforced impartially, on a July day in 1867 William Johnston led a march from Bangor to Newtownards. Subsequently he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for breach of the law. That is what is involved in cross-bearing — being prepared to take the consequences of following through one's conscientious actions. After his release from prison he was returned to this Chamber, and he continued to be a Member of Parliament for many years. In view of that background, I should have thought that any responsible Minister would think twice before curtailing or banning a parade that has taken place for 150 years. We have been told that one section of the Northern Ireland community is alienated, but growing numbers are being alienated by ham-fisted actions by Her Majesty's Government and by those who serve as Ministers.
The Secretary of State fails to recognise our fears when he repeatedly invites spokesmen of a foreign country to weigh in on Northern Ireland affairs, as he did again in last week's debate when he said:
It is natural that Ministers in the south should, as they do from time to time, feel and express views about what happens in the north. My predecessors and I have differed from other hon. Members and some elected representatives in the Province on that point. However, I have already stated the conclusion that the Government have reached on it." — [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 975.]
The right hon. Gentleman also said that Dublin dialogues were no substitute for a solution within Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionist party and I believe that the Northern Ireland Office has not tried to move forward within Northern Ireland and that it is busily engaged, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in undermining confidence and stability within Northern Ireland.
What other interpretation can we put upon the lack of information from the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on their discussions with the Republic? It is the easiest thing in the world to laugh, but, as a psychiatrist or a psychologist would say, that is a cover-up, because there is no argument against


that inference. We have asked questions, but we find it difficult to get answers. Ministers from the Department of the Secretary of State and from other Departments have been meeting Ministers from the Republic about every two weeks since 1983. That is shown in a written answer in column 413 of the Official Report of 1 April. I do not think that there is any significance in the fact that the question was answered on 1 April.
The range of Departments involved in the meetings has been wide — Education, Energy, Agriculture, Justice, Transport, Environment, Wales, Social Services, Employment. One can imagine the number of meetings that take place between officials of the Departments concerned in the United Kingdom and the Republic. I said, "One can imagine." One has to, because the right hon. Gentleman has refused to give information about meetings between officials. There is no information to disabuse us our ignorance or to confirm our views.
Officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been attending conferences in Dublin on Irish culture, organised by a group funded by the British taxpayer to the tune of £24,000 in the current year. That was shown in the Supply Estimates, class II, vote 1. People in Northern Ireland wonder what is going on. It may be the promotion of Irish culture at the expense of our British identity. We should like to think that money was being spent also on our British identity.
We are told that the two communities have to live together. We had a classic illustration of a name that brought the two communities together — Londonderry. "London" indicates the British tradition and "Derry" the Irish tradition. But the Government decided to do away with "London" in the name of the Council.
There is a constant erosion of our British culture, but we spend fair sums of money upon promoting Irish culture. I can find no evidence of the Ulster identity being studied in schools. Can the Secretary of State find time to tell us whether those groups in Northern Ireland which seek to promote the concept of an Ulster identity will receive the same funds as those which promote what is glibly called the Irish identity?

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a six or a nine-county Ulster identity?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am not unduly worried.
The Secretary of State takes a constant interest in and regularly speaks about what is commonly called the Irish section. The Irish section joined Dean Swift in saying that everything English should be burnt, apart from English coal. I hope that the miners do not object to that quotation.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) represents those who constantly refer to the English imposition upon Ireland. The nine counties are historically an English imposition, but that was not the old Ulster. That is more akin to the Northern Ireland which we represent. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware that this is a debate about Ulster's identity.
The report of the Anglo-Irish Encounter Group says:
It was hoped that Oxford university would establish a chair of Irish Studies. An Institute of Irish Studies, offering a BA in Irish Studies, was being established by Keele University, Crewe and Alsager College of Education and North Staffordshire Polytechnic. When a number of such degree courses existed, it

should be possible to get Irish Studies accepted at A level. It was surprising, she said, that options in American, French and many other studies existed, but not in Irish studies.
I would add that they do riot exist for Ulster studies.
It is too much of coincidence that the daughter of Garret FitzGerald teaches Irish studies at Crewe and Alsager college of education. I doubt whether, despite her father's proud boast of having an Ulster ancestor, she will be telling her students about the Unionist side of the argument. It is conveniently and regularly forgotten. We talk about the English imposition and English misrule instead of referring to the quality of life that has characterised the north-east of Ireland since long before the plantation.
There is one stable factor which Ministers, the Opposition and others ignore and to which they seem determined to remain blind: the vote for the Unionist parties which has been signified at every election in Northern Ireland, whether by the strict first-past-the-post system or by the manipulation of proportional representation. The people of Northern Ireland vote consistently and clearly for the Union.
Hon. Members refer to a head count, as though the British Government had drawn a frontier to protect the Union. An honourable agreement was reached between the three consenting parties on the best way forward, but that was not at the behest of the Ulster Unionists. In our heart of hearts, most of us would have preferred, instead of the secession of the 26 counties from the United Kingdom, the old Unionist position: that the best hope for the future is to be found in a relationship with the United Kingdom. If we want stability, that is the way forward.
Those who gave evidence recently to the Northern Ireland Assembly's devolutionary committee made it plain that the community should have been given a voting opportunity which demonstrated that fewer than 50 per cent. of the Roman Catholic community was in favour of a United Ireland. This was done in the border referendum. No matter how one does the sums, even allowing for intimidation it showed clearly, as subsequent opinion polls have shown, that this is not simply a question of Roman Catholic versus Protestant, but a question that divides those who want to be in the Union and to live in a stable community and those who want to latch on to the United Kingdom, through Europe and other subventions, instead of taking their place within the overall structure.
I need not deal in detail with the sorry tale of the Government's refusal to strike at Sinn Fein. Its entry into local government in Northern Ireland signified the renewal of genocidal war against both Protestant and Catholic policemen and prison officers.
The Labour party has co-operated honourably with us, and this Opposition Supply day debate arises out of an agreement with it. I believe that I detected signs of an improvement in two recent speeches from the Front Bench of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I pay tribute to what he said in those speeches. Nevertheless, Brecon Beacon is probably calling many hon. Members to dance around it today. That may account for so few Opposition Members being in the House. The Conservative party may be fighting a battle there, too. However, little can be said about Labour party policy for our much maligned Province. Who speaks for the Labour party? Is it the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, or the various groups within the Labour


party who lean over his shoulder and trot out their various half-baked and dangerous schemes? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
If there is ever to be an end to divisions in Northern Ireland, if people are ever to live in peace with their neighbours, and if there is to be any end of the tribalism, the violence, the waste and the tragedy of it all, there must be some arrangement about how people can live together in one island and manage their business and administer their affairs. There is no hope of that unless they can seek agreement through conversations and constitutional processes with those with whom they do not already agree." — [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 985.]
On that occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman was long in criticism of the Unionists and the Government but short on what he himself would do. We are still awaiting real proposals, rather than colonial style visits that lead to some Members of his party being in dialogue with Sinn Fein, who are proxies for murder.
I prefer to look beyond the Front Bench of the Labour party, where a responsible attitude has been shown at conferences and at other levels, to the activists who have hijacked what was once a great party. In a recent reference to the Sinn Fein vote in the local government elections in Northern Ireland, the magazine of the Labour Committee on Ireland, New Labour and Ireland, said:
This must mark the end of normalisation. The six local councils where Sinn Fein hold the balance of power is proof enough.
Speaking of the efforts of Unionists to stand up to Republicanism on local councils, it says:
Labour activists in Britain will have to campaign against this arrogance, through mutual delegations, links between councillors and pressure on party leaders to make their position clear.
Incidentally, the same issue of that publication carried a lengthy article by the Sinn Fein abstentionist from west Belfast about May day. The Labour Committee on Ireland is the Sinn Fein wing of the Labour party, and the attitude of the Labour party to that committee and to Northern Ireland has not contributed to stability, but has undermined good government and good relations in Northern Ireland.
Lest I am told that all I do is criticise and do not put forward views, I shall put forward something of the view that we on this Bench take, though, as many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall be brief. We have attempted to bring a lasting, stable, durable state of affairs to Northern Ireland. As I criticise types of discussion—for example, relationships with the Irish Republic — I am reminded of the famous "Tell Scotland" campaign in church circles, when an elder of the Church of Scotland said, "I do not mind them telling Scotland. It is what they are telling Scotland that I am not so sure about."
As one who has been prepared to argue our corner and event to go to the deep south of Ireland to present the Unionist viewpoint, I am not against presenting our case to or having proper relationships with a friendly neighbour. However, I must ask that neighbour to start being friendly. A man who wants friends must show himself to be friendly. One way immediately to start on that process would be to get rid of the arrogant 1935 constitution, which would never have been brought in had there been a desire on the part of the southern Irish people to have one-ness with Ulster.
In considering our position, it is clear that we have counselled caution and calmness, although Conservative Members may not wish to give us credit for having done

that. We have preached caution when stories of summits and sell-outs have filled the pages of the newspapers. We have preached responsible responses to provocation from the IRA and INLA and on local councils.
We also acted responsibly when the Secretary of State set his face against our culture and religious freedom in respect of Londonderry and our legitimate right to hold a peaceful march, especially a march to a church service which had gone on annually for 150 years. That attitude of responsibility was summed up well last week by our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, when, talking of speculation in the media, he said:
Because of all this suspicion, because of all the kite-flying and because of all the projections, all the rumour-mongering and all the deliberate leaks, they can hardly blame Loyalists for being a bit suspicious and, if it comes to that, they can hardly blame the IRA for imagining that, if it gets in on the act, it will expedite affairs along the road that it would wish to choose". — [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 990.]
We have tried hard to formulate a lasting system of government for Northern Ireland. That is why I was prepared to enter the Northern Ireland constitutional convention, which this House did not debate because a section refused to take part in any such debate, and thereby did not have the opportunity to vote for many parts of the convention report with which Members of that section would have agree. I refer, of course, to the SDLP. Its Members took that view because they were not given a cast iron guarantee of a place in office, no matter how the people voted. We were prepared to provide the structure in which all could participate. However, they wanted a structure in which they could say, "We are in, no matter who else is out." Having given that convention a job to do, this House did not bother properly to examine what it said in its report. Thank heavens that a few of the recommendations of the convention have subsequently been developed, despite the attitude of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member who represents a Leeds constituency, the proper name of which escapes me.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the way in which some people in Northern Ireland object when their names are not known, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be told that my constituency is Morley and Leeds, South.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making that clear. He will recall that at the time when we were lobbying about the report of the convention in respect of extra seats at Westminister, he said, "Never." I reminded him then that his Leader had said that seven days was a long time in politics. "Never" is a word that one should not use in politics. That is the view I take of the convention report. Little by little the light may dawn on people.
We have acted within the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was set up by this Chamber, to perform an impossible task on impossible terms, for it was certain from the beginning that one of the parties would stay out. We said that the system would have to be changed, and subsequently the Assembly has been looking at the whole matter through its devolution committee.
I need not remind the House of the invitations that have been extended to the absenting party, which is represented in this Chamber by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—who is absent again today — and of our attempt to persuade the Roman Catholic hierarchy, Dr. Cahil


Daly, to come before us to give his views on the alienation of the community so that we might at least have the opportunity to speak to somebody with a point of view to express.
Having said that, let us consider the view of my party, as expressed in "The Way Forward", in which we said:
The time is now ripe for both communities in Northern Ireland to realise that, essentially, their problems will have to be solved in Northern Ireland by their political representatives and that any future prospect for them and their children is best provided for within the Northern Ireland context. This will require a mutual recognition of each other's hopes and fears. Only rights can be guaranteed, not aspirations, but it is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs.
Some of us have been doing our best to get that across. It is a hard task, especially when some stay out of the ring. While the metaphor may not be altogether apt, it is nevertheless real.
In that document, we recognised the problems and conflicts in Ulster. We also pointed out that present arrangements were shackled by impossible conditions, which demanded that those who wished to wreck the system should be handed the levers of power. Instead, we asked that limited powers over basic local government functions be devolved to Stormont, so that perhaps at that level a degree of trust and a working relationship could be built up.
I admit, frankly, that the time to act on the issue may have gone and that a good opportunity was lost in the welter of bitterness generated by Sinn Fein and the IRA since 15 May. However, we are asking the Government, the Labour party and all parties in this House to look again at the whole issue and to recognise that the conditions imposed by the current system in Northern Ireland must be changed to allow direct accountability by politicians and public servants for their actions.
An aspect that has caused tremendous unrest is the fact that the self-appointed protector of the minority in Northern Ireland has never properly defined that minority. The definition alters according to whom one is debating the matter with. It is normally defined by Mr. Barry as "Nationalist", though on some occasions he defines it as "Roman Catholic".
When a person from outside our country appoints himself as the protector of minorities, we must be careful how we deal with that person. History recalls that an individual named Hitler appointed himself as the protector of minority interests. The concept of power-sharing was introduced into Austria to preserve the interest of the minority, and that ultimately led to the anschluss of 1938.
We would deny the right of any Ministers or Government to set themselves up as the protecting power within Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the lamentable spectacle of the terror and the tears caused by the then Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, who ordered the troops to the border at an earlier time.
In closing, I wish to take up one point that was made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) in winding-up the debate on 26 June. He assured us then that, if we had not been talking to the Government of the Irish Republic, there would, for example, have been no arms find on the Marita Anne. I may be an innocent abroad, I may be naive, and I may be getting my information from the wrong sources, but I understood that the arms for the Marita Anne were discovered in the United States and that it was through NATO shadowing operations that they were traced being transferred to the Marita Anne. As a result, the southern security forces could have done very little but get them. Perhaps it was because there was no conversation going on in the last week or so when the Marita Anne was at sea again and an Irish fisheries protection boat challenged it, because it suspected the Marita Anne of doing some illegal salmon fishing, that masked gunmen on the Marita Anne repelled an attempt to board her. The sea-to-shore communications were so excellent that the Marita Anne was able to dock and the crew to scarper before anybody could come to see who was on board. If that is the sort of security co-operation that has been going on between the north and south, between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, some of us would say that we need a little bit more to bring stability to Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'invites the Government to continue to promote measures which encourage peace, stability and good relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland; invites both communities to work to these ends; recognises the contribution which improved relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland can make in furthering these objectives; and recognises the need to maintain a firm security policy under the law.'.
Hon. Members on the Unionist Opposition Benches have, I think, chosen an admirable theme for their Supply day, and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) moved the motion in a clear and calm way. I think that it is an admirable theme because stability under the law is the first need of any society. It is not always present in Northern Ireland, and that is certainly the main shortcoming in Northern Ireland today. We discussed last week in two debates the details of this, and therefore I need today only to set out again, briefly, how we, the Government, work to achieve the stability which the Opposition and the hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly wish to see.
The motion that the Unionists have tabled selects one particular matter as destabilising, to use their phrase, and that is the talks between the British and Irish Governments, so I ought to deal with that first.
I cannot advise the House to accept the unamended motion that the Unionist party has tabled, but I notice that it is couched in moderate terms. It does not ask us to refuse discussions with the Irish Republic but to bring them to an early termination. It does not ask us to reject any agreement with the Irish Government but to publish any conclusions in a White Paper.
The origins of this round of discussions between the two Governments have been often discussed in the House. The House knows that they originated in the Chequers summit communiqué, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach issued after that summit, in which they reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and went on to say that they wanted to find ways of reflecting the identity of both communities in Northern Ireland.
Speaking to the United States Congress on 20 February, my right hon. Friend said:
Garret FitzGerald and I will continue to consult together in the quest for stability"—
note the same word as in the motion—
in Northern Ireland and hope we will have your continued support for our joint efforts to find a way forward.
Both my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear on numerous occasions that there is no intention on the Government's part either to transfer or to share with others outside Northern Ireland in some scheme for joint authority the exercise of executive power in the Province.
The discussions with the Irish Government are, I think I can safely say, reasonably well advanced. I cannot say this afternoon exactly when they will come to a conclusion, nor can I say whether that conclusion will be a successful agreement. There is work still to be done. I

suspect that it will not be all that long now before we know one way or another, but we do not know, I do not know, no one knows, this afternoon.
I recognise the point made in the motion that in this period there are press reports that confuse and that can create anxiety. I think many Opposition Members will recognise that there are in the Province people who are anxious that there should be anxiety. There are people whose aim is not stability, but rather keeping the temperature high.
However, I recognise that there is also genuine anxiety in the majority community born out of many sufferings and the strong feelings of a community that has often felt beleaguered and threatened. I ask them to accept that, if discussions are to be serious, they do sometimes have to be in confidence until they are concluded. I think that it is almost implicit in the motion that they do accept this. This is true in many walks of life, and often in transactions between Governments.
I must tell the House that it would be rather easier for me personally in the job that I have if I were able to break confidences and deal faithfully with the rumours that have been circulating, but I am not so free at present. All that I can give the hon. Member for Belfast, South this afternoon is the assurance that, as soon as the present round of talks comes to an end, whether they succeed or fail, the outcome will be fully and openly announced. Obviously, if they result in any agreement, the House will have an opportunity to discuss and take a view on that agreement.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the Prime Minister in the last few days entered into discussions on behalf of this country with the representatives of other nations, she set out clearly to the House what the objectives were, what she wanted, what she was prepared to accept and what she was not prepared to accept. Would it not be helpful if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would do that in the relations between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, which are much more tense and which concern much more directly the stability of the Province?

Mr. Hurd: If the right hon. Gentleman would look up the account that my right hon. Friend gave to the House after the Chequers summit, he will see there set out exactly the same sort of explanation and analysis of objectives as my right hon. Friend gave the other day after the Milan summit. The aim of the talks, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks up that reference, the aim of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and of our colleagues, is increased stability, to take place within the framework of the assurances that we have been given and to which I have referred.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South, as I expected, made a connection between the subject which he raised — the talks — and the tradition of parades and marches, which is part of the summer scene in Northern Ireland. At its best, that tradition is cheerful and festive, and both communities organise such events. Last year 2,200 parades took place in Northern Ireland of which the police knew, and no doubt there were many of which they did not know. I happened to ask how many there were three days ago, and the answer was 41 on one day alone.
Of course, the parades in themselves are a display of solidarity, but it is a display that can be made without any


sense of insult or provocation to others. Neither the Chief Constable nor I have any desire to interfere with parades of this kind, let alone to impose a general ban such as was imposed in the last days of Stormont rule. Every evening at this time of year, dozens of such parades are taking place in every one of the six counties along routes agreed with the police without difficulty in calm and good-tempered circumstances, as I have seen for myself. The difficulty arises with a few of the proposed parades. Some of those, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, are not traditional but have sprung up in recent years in a deliberate attempt to provoke those who live in the streets through which they seek to pass.
One example is the parade at Castlewellan, which I banned last week. More than 90 per cent. of the citizens of Castlewellan are Catholics. The proposed parade was overwhelmingly an affair of outsiders, who wished to put the stamp of Protestant ascendancy upon a Catholic town. I had no difficulty in agreeing with the Chief Constable's recommendation that I should ban that parade in the interests of public order. It seemed to me that the organisers were playing into the hands of Sinn Fein and the IRA, and that if I had allowed the parade to take place I should have merely confirmed the untrue accusations of Sinn Fein and the IRA about the biased nature of direct rule. This year, or some year soon, there would probably have been a sectarian riot. The organisers of the parade, as the House will have noted, tried to defy the ban, and there were scenes of law breaking. Fortunately, the RUC was able to uphold the ban. Those who tried to overturn it did a bad service to Northern Ireland.
There are other parades — I am following the hon. Member's analysis — which are traditional but whose nature has changed over the years. In many cases, that is not the fault of the original organisers. In some cases, crude and provocative bands from miles away attach themselves to what used to be an orderly occasion. In other cases, a route which was once through green fields and passed friendly houses now runs through streets inhabited by the other community. A threat to public order can thus be feared, as at Portadown, in the next few weeks.
The correct answer in such cases—I repeat that they are a small minority — is for the organisers and the police to work out a different route that avoids the danger. I must stress that routes are not a matter for the Secretary of State. Under the law, they are rightly the responsibility of the police and the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable must choose place by place, parade by parade, how far he must insist on re-routeing if negotiations with the organisers break down.
Anyone who has experience of such matters will acknowledge that those are difficult decisions. I am sure that it is right that they should not be imposed from Stormont castle under some general policy. The decisions should be taken individually, as the law provides, by the Chief Constable, probably late in the day, in the light of his assessment of the needs of public order.
Sir John Hermon will have my full support in the decisions that he makes on the routeing of parades. I have heard it suggested — though diffidently by the hon. Gentleman today — that the Chief Constable's actions will be influenced by some form of interference or influence from Dublin. That is not so. The Irish Government's views about provocative parades are not hard to guess, but the Chief Constable's decisions on routes are taken on the ground of public order and stem

from the genuine anxieties which he has clearly and repeatedly set out in his annual reports. He follows a policy line that he has openly explained and justified on the ground of public order in Northern Ireland.
The abuse, for provocative purposes, of the parading tradition cannot be reconciled with the need for stability in Northern Ireland. The best way to maintain the good things in the tradition which Opposition Members rightly respect, is to eliminate the abuse.
Without wishing to bore the House with a repetition of the points that I made during our debate last week, I wish to describe what we mean by the search for stability and
a firm security policy under the law
as set out in the amendment. We mean eradicating terrorism by bringing those suspected of terrorist acts before the courts. We mean keeping the security forces one step ahead through a flexible policy, by overt and covert patrolling, gaining the co-operation of local people and maximising good intelligence.
In this country we have had an important success in the past week or so, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has reported to the House. That success is important for Northern Ireland as well as for the rest of the kingdom. It will bring relief on the other side of the water as well as here. The House will not expect me to say more about that because at present I plainly cannot. The House will have noticed, however, that one of those charged was an escaped prisoner from the Maze. The House will also have deduced that that success was the result of co-operation between police forces within the kingdom, but co-operation does not and should not stop short at the border with the Republic.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about border co-operation. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) sand when he gave us a long analysis of his views on that subject in our debate last week. He said that although Garda Siochana and RUC worked together up to a point because they shared a profession, no hope of wider cooperation existed because, to a large extent, the political aims of the Irish Government and the IRA converged, and were bound to converge. In his view, security co-operation in any depth was thus a myth. I hope that I have not distorted what the right hon. Gentleman said.
In the day-to-day world of trying to face the problems and trying to find the right answers which will save lives and eradicate terrorism, I do not believe that that negative analysis makes sense, partly because we see, as the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) pointed out, the Irish Government making major and successful efforts to combat terrorism. Those holding the positions that my hon. Friend I do must work as hard as they can to find a better and more systematic way of improving the cooperation that exists between the Irish Republic and the north. I believe that that is crucial to any sustained and remarkable improvement in the security position.
Anyone who has studied the facts and reports, for example, about home-made explosives, funds and the flow of weapons would, I think accept that cross-border security co-operation must be a prime aim if we are serious about the subject.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman so innocent that he is unaware that the Irish Republic lays on


finds and those operations when they fit the phase in which it finds itself in its negotiations with the British Government?

Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that I am innocent in those matters. I must take them seriously. I am not satisfied with the present level of co-operation. I should like to see it more sustained and systematic. I regard improving it as one of the essential aims of the Government and our security policy. Anyone who studies subject by subject the different sectors of security policy will be driven to that conclusion. I am not saying that that will be easy or that it will be achieved by a few sweet words or meetings. I am not denying the difficulties that plainly exist. I am saying that the aim is central——

Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State has made an important statement because in the past we have had nothing from the Government Front Bench but praise for the degree of security co-operation that comes from the Republic. Will he tell us in what areas co-operation needs to be more sustained and more systematic so that we can then judge the basis of his argument?

Mr. Hurd: The analysis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have consistently given while I have been in this place is that security co-operation is good but that it could be improved. That work is essential to improve the protection available to the citizens of Northern Ireland.
I wish to discuss the role that the security forces play in working for stability, and I address myself, in particular, to Opposition Members.
The Opposition will accept that the security forces—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment—are not present in Northern Ireland to impose the ascendancy of one community over another. That is emphatically not the purpose for which Parliament and United Kingdom taxpayers provide and sustain the security forces. The security forces are present to uphold the law even-handedly and to protect all law-abiding citizens from violence. There will be no stability in Northern Ireland unless that is true and seen to be true. I hope that Unionist Members will support that intention.
The decisions made by the security forces in attempting to exercise impartiality will sometimes be questioned or criticised. That is inevitable in a free society. I appreciate that there are fears of a slippery slope, that one step, one apparently reasonable concession, will lead to the exaction of another and that the slide will continue until the majority is eventually dragged unwillingly into a united Ireland. I can understand that fear because it has been explained to me cogently many times by people whose understanding of the majority community I respect, but I believe that it is an unreal fear.
The main evil in Northern Ireland is the calculated brutality of terrorism. Another evil, which feeds on that, is the inability in some places and in some sections of community life for the two communities to live in harmony. If Northern Ireland is to flourish there must be growth of co-operation across that boundary. There must be respect between the two communities. Whatever the outcome of the Anglo-Irish talks, we must seek to bring that harmony into existence. The Government will continue to work towards a form of devolution that will

command the acceptance and involvement of both communities and enable the elected representatives to play a better, more active part in the decisions that affect the daily life of the Province.
I was glad to hear my favourite sentence from "The Way Forward" quoted today even though it was qualified. We must all keep alive and develop the spirit in which the authors wrote that document. Responsible people need to support the security forces if we are to suceed in bringing about peace and greater stability in the Province. They must appreciate that detailed decisions must be taken in the interests of Northern Ireland as a whole. I have made this point in the past to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and I am sorry that he is not present for this important debate. I make the same appeal to all Unionist Members.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) told me the day before yesterday that he had an important engagement with the Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland, which he hoped might lead to further investment in the Province. That is the reason for his absence.

Mr. Hurd: I have clearly been unfair to the hon. Member for Foyle and I withdraw any criticism implied in my previous remarks about him.
In some respects what we ask is not easy. There is a large backlog of suspicions, incriminations, anxieties and feelings of insecurity that Unionist Members face when they return to Northern Ireland. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want peace and stability and regard them as great blessings, but those blessings are not the exclusive gift of Government. The Government have an essential part to play in creating these conditions but the responsibility lies not with us alone but with the elected representatives of the Province, with the community leaders and with the people.
I have tried to allay some of the anxieties that the hon. Member for Belfast, South raised in a calm manner when he opened the debate. I hope that I have shown some understanding of the anxieties that genuinely beset the people of the Province. The Government will not allow the greater stability — which is not yet perfect, but which has grown up in recent years and of which people in Northern Ireland are so proud—to be undone in a fit of midsummer frustration. That stability is too precious to be sacrificed in backlash and counter-reaction. We have seen in the past what lies down that road. That is why I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) ventilated some interesting thoughts, which I intend to pursue. First, however, I shall venture some reflections, partly philosophical and partly severely practical, which I hope will not fall outside the terms of the motion. The solutions on how best to govern Northern Ireland fall into three categories. First, there are long-term solutions — I use that expression in the sense of the permanency of the proposals rather than the length of time that we need take to achieve them. Secondly, there are medium-term solutions — measures to initiate the process of resolution and reconciliation. Thirdly, there are short-term solutions — measures that can be taken immediately without awaiting agreement on any other questions. I propose to discuss an example of the third category.
Between the hours of 2.30 am and 4.30 am today the House embarked on consideration of two orders of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. The first embraced a wide range of powers available to local councils to improve the quality of life in their areas. I repeat now what I said then partly because the House was not then so tightly packed as it is now and also because at that hour it was unlikely that my remarks would receive much consideration from the media. I said that anyone who chose that late hour to concentrate his thoughts on future policy for a Chinese laundry would be inviting bankruptcy, yet the Government considered it an appropriate time to consider the future of Northern Ireland. I said that the order related to a wide diversity of powers, approval of one part not necessarily entailing approval of the others, and that there was room for argument about the extent of the powers and safeguards required. But the order was unamendable and the House was invited to take it or leave it in its entirety. There was no possibility of making improvements.
I suggested that it was not beyond our collective wisdom to devise a better way of considering Northern Ireland business, and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), in a kind reference to my remarks, made it clear that, whatever our differences on other issues, here we were in agreement. He suggested on behalf of his party that there might be talks between the Government, the official Opposition, the Official Unionist party and any other party which consented to participate to explore what could sensibly be done.
I mention this matter for two reasons. First, I was brought up in an area where forgings were an essential part of many industrial processes and the work was carried out by blacksmiths, so I learned quite literally what was meant by striking while the iron is hot. The Labour party would welcome discussions for the purpose outlined by the right hon. Member for South Down, and if there is any response we will do our best to contribute to their success. Secondly, what was suggested seems to illustrate the point which I have tried constantly to make, that talks for a limited purpose, with no preconditions that anyone should first embrace or renounce any specific opinion, may make a positive contribution to good government. We may find that we enjoy the process; it may become a habit.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Belfast, South would suggest channels for agreement whereby his party might contemplate making concessions—that he would recognise the anxieties on the other side and hold out a hand. I say to him in all friendship that I think that he has demonstrated that public speeches are not the best way of advancing these discussions. The hon. Gentleman said nothing that would carry the dialogue any further. He tempted me to reiterate the Labour party's policy but, if I had done so, I would have been repeating what I have said on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman was there on most of them—perhaps he was not listening—but, if it will help, I shall provide him with the references to all the reports.
The Labour party is not unanimous on all aspects of its attitude to Northern Ireland. We are deeply suspicious of parties which are so clear about what they believe that discussion has come to a standstill, that their minds are closed to any new ideas and that they will not consider it possible that they may be wrong. The Labour party is looking and listening to all parties in Northern Ireland to

see whether there is any sign among any of them of a new tolerance and a suggestion that, were they in a dominant position, they would be prepared to be generous.
It was right that the hon. Member for Belfast, South and his colleagues sought to use their Supply day for ventilating this issue. The people of Northern Ireland and the people on this side of the water are anxious to know what progress has been made in the talks between the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Republic, if only because none of us is content with the status quo. The condition of Northern Ireland bears witness to the fact that there must be a better way of administering its affairs than the present way.
In the debate on 26 June the Secretary of State reported that the Government had
maintained a dialogue with the Irish Government."—Official Report. 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 974.]
He said that the details must remain confidential. I understand what the hon. Member for Belfast, South and the motion say—that secrecy breeds rumours and that people cannot resist making guesses, which are frequently bad guesses—but I am bound to say, being as objective as I can, that on this issue I come down on the side of the Government. There are two ways of conducting discussions—openly and publicly at each stage, so that we are all aware of what is happening, or they may proceed privately and, when agreement has been reached or when it is clear that no agreement is possible, the Government may announce the outcome. On many occasions, the open method is to be preferred. In a democracy the public should be provided with the maximum information about what is happening, unless there are good reasons for keeping the matter dark. It cannot be a good reason that it would be politically expedient for the Government to face us all with a fait accompli or that the Government would prefer not to answer awkward questions. Some of us entertain a suspicion that that may be their reason for keeping certain matters dark.
But where two sides are negotiating with a genuine hope of reaching understanding, where they have to explore possible ways of making progress — rejecting some proposals at the outset when it is clear that there is no advantage in pursuing them, and seeking to ascertain where there is already common ground and to find out which issues separate them—the negotiations are much more likely to be successful if they can be assured that a proposal will not be published out of context before the package is agreed, that a proposal which is not pursued will not bedevil progress, and that suggestions are not over-simplified or misunderstood before the details are worked out. In that situation, the two sides can be honest with each other, without having to watch every word because of the emotion that it might evoke. Being as fair as I usually try to be, on that issue I side with the Government.
I would be prepared for these discussions, as with some discussions between Ministers and right hon. Members, to take place privately in the hope that they would enable some progress to be made without public allegations and counter-allegations. What is important is not declamation and drama, but patient hard work on the debate. If I may say so without offence, if the Prime Minister defers calling another press conference until after some progress has been made and then handles the matter with sensitivity and restraint, we shall all breathe freely again. But the


Secretary of State must not assume that the patience of the public or of the House is unlimited. There comes a time when, understandably, people want to know what is happening and how long they must wait for a resolution of their problems. So I do not complain about the fact that the hon. Member for Belfast, South has asked these questions.
I should like the Government to discuss many matters with the Government of the Irish Republic. One activity, on which I believe all hon. Members would like the authorities on both sides of the border to co-operate more efficiently is the one mentioned by the Secretary of State — security. We would all like both police forces to operate as effectively, as fairly and as sensibly as possible. No one but a lawbreaker would derive any comfort from hearing that co-operation is impeded because of personal friction between senior officers in the respective forces. I hope that the two Governments are considering ways in which recruitment, the command structure and the nomenclature can be made to contribute to a situation in which the police are seen as protecting people of all traditions and are entitled in exchange to the co-operation of people of all traditions.
We should be moving towards a stage where the people of the nationalist tradition can believe that the police are objective and non-discriminating in the way that they discharge their duties so that, in the recent words of Mr. Peter Barry, a young nationalist may join the police without being any the less a nationalist. That objective will not be advanced if some Protestant politicians give the impression that they expect the police to make a distinction between their treatment of the two traditions. I know of no complaints from Loyalist sources when the police have rerouted nationalist marches. But when Loyalist marches have been affected, the police have been labelled as "traitors" and "puppets of the IRA", their actions have been ascribed to the long arm of the Republic acid it has become a question of the right of Ulster Protestants to walk on the roads in their own country.
Of course it is legitimate to ask whether a particular march is likely to be provocative or to endanger public order. Of course it makes sense to inquire as a matter of judgment whether police-public relations can best be improved in a particular way. I appreciate the restraint that hon. Members have shown in a difficult situation, and I hope that I am exercising similar restraint. It is easy to capture the headlines; it is harder to resist the temptation.
But those throughout the world who watch events in Northern Ireland have marvelled at the apparent expectation among some Protestant politicians that the police will apply double standards. They have been horrified at the remarks attributed to the Rev. Ivan Foster that he and his associates would identify every RUC man on duty in Castlewellan at the time of the march because
Protestants are not prepared to have these policemen seeking refuge from the IRA in Protestant villages".

When Protestant politicians appear to expect the police to treat Protestant marches and Catholic marches differently, it is hardly surprising if the same expectation is entertained in some Catholic circles.
I should like to hear that the two Governments have been discussing how they can co-operate to make security measures more effective, but that is not the only aspect where co-operation makes sense. If it appeared that the

Government were interested in co-operation only in respect of security measures, that they were concerned only with what the Secretary of State called "stability" but that they preferred in other respects to keep the Government of the Republic at arm's length, that would confirm the view of those who suspect that the Government see Northern Ireland principally as a security problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked the Secretary of State what he thought of other areas in which there might be cooperation, but I did not detect an answer. I think that the Secretary of State simply reiterated what he said earlier —that security was one respect in which there might be co-operation. I believe that there are other areas where simple elementary common sense calls for more effective channels of co-operation.
Last week we saw an example of where it was demonstrably and manifestly absurd to have two district policies on one island. The Republic has access to natural gas at Kinsale which it regards as a saleable commodity. At the same time, United Kingdom Ministers are closing the gas industry in Northern Ireland, depriving consumers of an option available in every other country in Europe and depriving loyal and skilled employees of their jobs. Let me give another example. It is not for the convenience of travellers that the Republic relies largely on the railway system for its transport, while the north places emphasis on its roads. I have never understood how it could be conducive to securing investment from abroad to have two competing authorities charged with attracting overseas investment. There is much that the two Governments can sensibly discuss.
Last week, too, the Secretary of State told the House:
The Irish Government have a legitimate interest in what goes on in Northern Ireland." — [Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 974.]
In reply to an intervention, he said that it was natural that Ministers in the south should have views about what happens in Northern Ireland. He said that there could be discussions about whether present channels for the expression of those views could be improved. We would like to have heard more about that today, but if the Minister judges that, if nothing is said publicly for the moment, prospects for progress will be better, I shall contain my curiosity a little longer.
I hope that the two Governments will not feel constrained in their discussions by any rigid definitions or text-book concepts in the vocabulary of constitutional lawyers. As a constitutional lawyer, I have tried to warn against being hypnotised by that vocabulary. Constitutional lawyers should be the servants of the people and not their masters.
In many ways, the problems of Northern Ireland are unique. We may need to find administrative arrangements which are original, in order to find widely acceptable ways of resolving the problems. I urge the Government to consider first how the affairs of the people can be sensibly administered and their aspirations met. Only then should they instruct the constitutional lawyers to devise the technical format. Words such as "sovereignty" and "citizenship" may not be the ideal tools for the job of initiating discussions. Indeed, they may impede the possibility of agreement.
To reach agreement will require goodwill and concessions on both sides. The Irish Government must demonstrate that the parties to the Forum report were


serious when they said that they recognised the anxieties of the Protestant people and that they would do what they reasonably could to set them at rest. People of each tradition fear the possibility of being at the mercy of the other tradition. The irony is that each tradition finds it difficult to understand what the other side fears. When our Labour party working group visited Northern Ireland a fortnight ago we met representatives of all the parties who would speak with us. It was very noticeable—I shall be interested to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North can confirm this—that every delegation we met declared that they were not convinced that, if the other side were in a dominant position, they would be fairly treated. But every delegation declared that, if their side were in a dominant position, they would treat the other side fairly. Each side had doubts about the good faith of the other; neither side could understand why the other should have doubts about its own good faith.
It is not a simple matter of good intentions. It needs imagination-and sensitivity to traditions, customs and aspirations which one does not share. That entails two sorts of discussion which are interdependent and which must proceed together. It entails formal safeguards for whoever is the minority at a particular place and time. It means considering ways of sharing power which are not dependent upon the discretion of the majority party in a state or province, or on a council. It may mean considering electoral systems which offer representation to minorities. It may mean considering channels of complaint for individuals or communities if they believe that they have been victims of discrimination. It may mean discussing Bills of Rights and strengthening equal opportunities machinery. I have written to the Secretary of State on that matter.
I recall that Mr. Sean MacBride, in his submission to the New Ireland Forum, suggested a Bill of Rights, which would be subscribed to by both Governments, in cases where it would not be known which side on a specific occasion was the dominant majority, or which side would be invoking the rights of the minority. So each side would have an incentive to care about the rights of minorities. I do not put that forward as a literal suggestion for discussion, but it seems to me that he was on to something.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he is describing the parliamentary democracy of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Archer: I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, is so insensitive as not to recognise the distinction between an electoral majority that may change and an electoral majority that is firm, established and permanent.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman follow the analogy a little further and consider what would be the position if County Durham were treated as separate and self-governing in the same way as we view Northern Ireland? We would almost have a fixed majority and a fixed minority. A conclusion can be drawn from this.

Mr. Archer: I thought that we had established this morning the common ground between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. If we consider powers appropriate to a county council, certain considerations apply, but if we consider powers of a totally different order, other conclusions follow.

Mr. Powell: rose——

Mr. Archer: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I discuss this matter with him later. If we turn this into a duologue, it will take an inordinate amount of time. However, obviously there is room for discussion between us and that gladdens my heart because it is what I have tried to establish.
All the devices that I have mentioned may be worth considering in the context of Northern Ireland, even though they are not appropriate elsewhere in the United Kingdom where the problems and needs are different.
A more difficult kind of discussion is about how the people of each tradition, and their leaders, may be helped to understand how it feels to belong to the other tradition. There is probably an urge in all of us to persecute those who are different, just because they are different, because their hair is longer or shorter than ours, or they dress differently, or worship in a different way, or eat a different meal on Fridays. They are different; not worse; not better; just different. If to that urge is added a feeling of insecurity, we have the ingredients of a 17th century witch hunt. It is not to the point to quote examples of people from the two traditions who get on together as good colleagues, or good neighbours or good workmates. Our behaviour as individuals is quite distinct from our political behaviour.
I am conscious that sermons preached about love and charity have little influence on events, especially when preached at a safe distance from the problem. But I have never understood why "do-gooders" is a term of opprobrium. As a personal predilection, I prefer sermons about love and charity to those in favour of hellfire. But if discussions about formal machinery are concurrent with discussions about the promotion of greater understanding, each may help the other.
Of course, the spearhead of the solutions must be talks within Northern Ireland and attempts by the groups and parties there to find a better future together. But I believe that Irish Ministers are anxious, in good faith, to contribute to that process. I do not believe that their overtures are part of a cold-blooded plot to deceive us about their real intentions. I do not believe that there is a calculated conspiracy between Irish Ministers, officials at Stormont castle and RUC officers to deliver the majority in Northern Ireland into serfdom. Those who invent such conspiracies perform no service to the Protestant people.
I believe that the good will expressed in the Forum report was genuine, and that the response in "The Way Forward" was genuine. Questions of whether any good will expressed in the past was genuine do not arise, because until recently nobody expressed any. That is the new factor. A further new factor could be if each side considered the possibility that there might be a genuine desire to find a solution on the other side.

Rev. William McCrea: Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the freely expressed wish of the people. The right of any country to self-determination and to choose its own destiny is a fundamental constitutional and democratic principle enshrined in international law. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland have consistently declared through the ballot box their unalterable desire to remain within the United Kingdom.


Every right hon. and hon. Member is aware of that fact. Some hon. Members may not like it, but it is an established and firm fact.
Recognition and support for the right of self-determination for the people of Northern Ireland is an inescapable obligation for those who have respect for the ballot box. It is not the British troops in the street who keep Ulster British and our people within the United Kingdom, but such overwhelming declarations in favour of that union with Great Britain as emerged from the 1973 referendum and from every election since that occasion.
I must state in unmistakable terms that any attempt at any time to force the Ulster people out of the United Kingdom and into an all-Ireland republic will be fiercely resisted with the same grim determination that was displayed in the House by our forefathers many years ago. Historically, culturally, economically — and therefore politically — the six counties which form Northern Ireland have been and still are utterly different from the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, Irish unification could occur only by the suppression of Northern Ireland's democratic right to and exercise of self-determination.
The leader who dominated southern politics for many years—De Valera—once described Unionists as "a rock on the road" to Irish unification. That same politician said that if necessary that rock must be blasted out of the path. For many years the IRA has sought to do just that. It has sought to blast the Unionists out of existence and those that would be left into an all-Ireland republic. The Ulster Loyalists have never yielded to bombing or to murder. Indeed, their courage and determination has defied every bomb and every bullet.
Alas, Ulster has suffered not only from those who have attacked with the bomb and the bullet, but from some who should be our friends. For many years Ulster prospered. Stability was enjoyed by the Northern Ireland people until plans and schemes began to be laid by those who thought that the best way to achieve the Irish solution was in the United Ireland context. Some even thought that the best way to achieve peace was through a policy of appeasement; a policy of giving in here, there and everywhere to appease the terrorists.
The proposed restructuring of Stormont was admitted by Lord Carrington to be a modification of the principle of pure democracy. That would never have been contemplated but for the savagery of the cruel IRA campaign launched against the Province. The IRA, having served its apprenticeship in the civil rights campaign, began successfully to blackmail politicians in Ulster into a policy of self-inflicted disintegration. Concession after concession was made to appease, but nothing will satisfy those whose only avowed aim is the destruction of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Since the days of O'Neill we have witnessed in Northern Ireland the unfolding of a scheme—continuing today—which, in the minds of those who have planned it, will eventually lead us, ease us and tease us into an all-Ireland solution. The IRA's aim is the same but the political moves and aims are to achieve it deceitfully by stages.
For many years some people in Northern Ireland feared that they would wake up one morning and find themselves in a united Ireland. If that had been possible, it would have been done already.
The purpose, the plan and the design of politicians in some parts of the United Kingdom is, little by little, to ease Northern Ireland out of its ties with the United Kingdom. It is clear that London and Dublin are engaged in attempting gradually to integrate Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic. Ever closer co-operation between north and south and an increasing number of social and economic plans have been foisted upon Northern Ireland in an attempt to condition the people into thinking that their real affinity lies, after all, with the Irish Republic and not with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a devious plan and ploy.
Many hon. Members are forthright in their declaration of what they desire. Others are more underhand. Unification by degree, by stages or little by little, is anathema to the Unionists of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland people resent the neutral stance adopted by successive British Governments about the Union. Westminster refuses to declare itself in favour of the Union, but some Opposition spokesmen make no bones about it. They would like a united Ireland, but they add the rider that they want it by peaceful means and not by the bomb and the bullet. However, others in the House say that they have no preference and that if the people want to go into a united Ireland, let it be.
Where are those who desire the Union? Why is there always a neutrality? Why does not the rest of the United Kingdom clearly state that Northern Ireland, like Scotland, Wales and England, should be a part of this great United Kingdom?
The IRA interpret that as a signal that the British Government will not stand in its way — the way of unification—if it can persuade Northern Ireland to join a 32-county republic. It derives encouragement and succour from attempts by the British Government to move gradually in the direction of an all-Ireland republic. I have heard many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and Unionist politicians express that view. The purpose of this and successive Governments has been the easing, or setting adrift, of the strong links that have been forged between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Such measures would be an insult to those who have died or been injured in Northern Ireland and victory for the barbaric campaign of Republican terrorism. I demand in the name of those who elected me—I therefore have a democratic right to say it—that the current discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic be brought to an immediate end. Because of the past, people are suspicious of the words of politicians. People do not really trust what politicians say—they believe that their words are chosen to suit the occasion. Indeed, when the Secretary of State or others come on the television screen in Northern Ireland and say categorically that there are no moves to ease Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom, the people of Northern Ireland become suspicious. Many of their suspicions are later found to be true.
The people of Northern Ireland are forthright and open. They like to call a spade a spade, and they say exactly what they mean. If the Government have certain designs for the Province, the people would far rather hear them said to their faces than through one of those leaks or kites that are


often flown by the press. Not all of what the papers suggest is derived from uninspired leaks. Many are deliberate leaks to assess the temperature and what the people of Northern Ireland will accept. Surely it is about time that the majority in Northern Ireland asked the Government to come clean about the negotiations and talks with Dublin.
It is a disgrace that the future of British Ulstermen is being discussed, yet no member of the majority is made aware of what matters are under discussion. Some hon. Members may say that no member of the minority knows. That is clearly not true. The Government can inform the Reagan Administration about the core of the negotiations between the London and Dublin Governments. The Dublin Government make no bones about the fact that, when the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) makes his weekly flight to Dublin to hear the next episode in the story, they are happy to tell him exactly what stage the negotiations are at and what the negotiations are about.
The majority, whose future is at stake, are kept in the dark about these discussions until some conclusion has been reached. With the greatest respect to the minority, the majority community should know what is discussed. It is only then that the Loyalists and the majority community can give their answers to the proposals under discussion and acknowledge the truth of the situation.
The Government's amendment
invites the Government to continue to promote measures which encourage peace, stability and good relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland".
That sounds very good. Everyone wants
to continue to promote measures which encourage peace
yet insensitive measures have been taken during the past week concerning the re-routeing of traditional Loyalist parades—I join the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) in saying traditional Loyalist parades. Those insensitive measures have been taken at the request of Mr. Peter Barry—a Foreign Minister with no responsibility to the Government or to the people of Northern Ireland. This action, taken at the request of Mr. Peter Barry, Sinn Fein and the SDLP—the Republican trio — does nothing to instil hope into the hearts of Ulster people.
As for the Secretary of State's statement about the Chief Constable's decision, I remind him, as an Ulster Member of Parliament, that the local chiefs of police in Cookstown did not want the parade to be re-routed. They made it absolutely clear that the Chief Constable's decision was not a decision which they recommended for the preservation of order in Cookstown, which is part of my constituency. There had to be another motive for that rerouteing—because Sinn Fein wanted it. Loyalists have to sit in local councils with Sinn Fein. Last evening, I talked to colleagues in the border area of Strabane who told me, as it has been announced, that a Sinn Fein councillor is being questioned about murderous activity. Because my fellow Loyalist councillors will not sit at the table with Sinn Fein, they were ordered out by the SDLP chairman of the Strabane district council. Such actions and the SDLP's close associations with Sinn Fein instil little hope of that party encouraging the return of stability to Northern Ireland.
The IRA and similar organisations cannot be eliminated by new structures of government in Northern Ireland or by any political settlement. We are told to get ahead with the political settlement of Northern Ireland—has everyone forgotten that the IRA is not concerned about political

stability in Northern Ireland? It will give no allegiance to any Government, with or without cross-community support. It must still be tackled and dealt with.
I am delighted that the Government have stated clearly that it is their policy to eliminate terrorism. After 17 years of trouble under the policies pursued by successive Governments, it is about time for an assessment of whether the policy is working. The Government's amendment
recognises the need to maintain a firm security policy under the law.
Perhaps I may remind the House of a recent international terrorist action concerning American hostages which all right-thinking politicians condemn. We are delighted that most of the hostages have been released and pray that those still being held in Lebanon will also be released.
I understand that the American Administration are offering money for information about the whereabouts of the person who hijacked the plane and, to go even further, the person who shot the young service man. Would anyone suggest that Mr. Reagan would consider offering money if he was going through the usual processes of the law? Is he asking the Lebanese to deal with their terrorists? He is not. The American Administration desire to eliminate that terrorist so that he can never again commit his dastardly deeds.
The Government know the whereabouts of well-known IRA murderers who have a safe haven — I know that certain Ministers do not like to hear that mentioned—in the Irish Republic. A place called Provohill contains some of the most beautiful houses and bungalows built in the south of Ireland, paid for with money from skulduggery. Those terrorists sit in the south of Ireland without fear of arrest or harassment. They enjoy the fruits of their terrorism.
If the south of Ireland wants to prove the sincerity of its friendship, let it come up with a proper extradition treaty so that those guilty of the most vile atrocities can be brought to justice in the United Kingdom. It is only with the military defeat of the IRA that peace can be restored to Northern Ireland.
The Republican politicians who insist that only the adoption of policies leading to a united Ireland can bring peace are using IRA terror to blackmail the Unionists and the British Government into submission. The violence of IRA murderers cannot be allowed to succeed. The people of Northern Ireland are remarkably resilient and restrained in the face of the most violent of atrocities. They want only that which is their inalienable right—to live as British citizens and to go about their daily business in peace.
There are those in Northern Ireland who want the Province destroyed. However, the vast majority of people in the Province want stability. They have no desire to ride over the heads of others who hold different opinions. It is all very well for a minority group to have a dream. We have heard of the dream of some people in the United States centred around Martin Luther King. There are those in Northern Ireland who dream of a united Ireland. However, it is one thing to have a dream but another to murder and destroy the vast majority of people to achieve that dream.
Northern Ireland needs stability. The real needs of its people can be served only by the restoration of a proper devolved Government to the Province. Such devolution must be based on established British democratic principles. Our Stormont has been destroyed. Our Parliament has been taken from us. Local government has


been destroyed by the presence of Sinn Fein. There are those in government who tell us that Ulster people will be held to ransom—that either they will move or they will never again have control over their own affairs.
The Government have given the SDLP a veto on progress in Northern Ireland. Because its representatives will not serve in the Assembly, there are those who are crying out for the Assembly to be closed. A great deal of good work has been done by those who have attended the Assembly. The Minister must acknowledge that many changes in legislation affecting the lives of people in Northern Ireland have been brought about by the Assembly committees. That is to be welcomed. There is a desire to move a step forward.
The Government must tell the SDLP that Northern Ireland's future is within the United Kingdom and that it must reach an accommodation with the Unionists to ensure that future. Holding the possible carrot of the intervention of Dublin in our affairs will never bring reality into the position or force reality upon the minority community in Northern Ireland. I say with all my heart that if realism was brought to the SDLP, and if it was told that the future of Northern Ireland lay firmly within the United Kingdom, the SDLP would be forced to sit down and talk genuine business with the Unionist community.
It must be laid clearly on the line today that the Unionists offered clear and genuine discussions with the SDLP. I trust that it will turn its back on its new-found friends in Sinn Fein and return to sanity and reason so that there can be a future for the people of our beloved country. May stability soon be restored to our Province again. I know that it is for this House to dictate the terms to Ulster. I know that it is in the hands of the House to tell it what it must do. But this House must also remember that the people of Ulster have it in their hands to make the final decision.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: During the past week I have had the task of studying the consultative paper on police complaints and discipline, collating the opinions of my party colleagues and submitting them to the Secretary of State. I wish to quote two sentences from the report. One states:
Despite the fact that all complaints are investigated by senior and experienced officers, it seems apparent that this has not proved sufficient in all cases to sustain public confidence in the complaints system.
The other states:
every effort should be made to ensure that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is acceptable to all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland.
When I see such a statement in a Government report, I begin to wonder what on earth they are doing to the RUC. Those two sentences give the impression that the RUC is not a force of which we can be proud and not one that has served the community so well over many years.
During the past 15 years there have been many reports on security, the judiciary and methods of dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland. There must have been eight, 10 or 12 reports. They range from the Hunt report to the Bennett report. Each of the reports trots out the same old arguments and adjustments are made—yet what is the outcome? Within our community there is a section that is never satisfied, so we must have yet a further report and

further concessions to try to satisfy the insatiable. It seems typical of the Government's apparent will to be subservient to all except those law-abiding citizens and the law enforcers who work under such difficult circumstances in Ulster.
This afternoon, we listened to the Secretary of State saying that our motion was commendable and he approved of it but that the Government had to modify it. Can anyone tell me how the motion diverges from the opinion we expressed in our document "The Way Forward", and why the Government find it necessary to push us a little bit further and a little bit quicker when my party is trying to be responsible in facing the issues that confront us? Are the Government of the opinion that by doing that they can dissuade terrorists from continuing with their terrorism? Surely they have learned their lesson after 15 years.
A French criminologist, Jacques Léanté, said:
Terrorism is an act of communication.
We know that it is other things as well, but I draw that phrase to the attention of the House because, during the past week the Secretary of State has complained to me that he is finding things very difficult. He complains that his efforts towards progress are being stymied by rumour. He is right. The difficulty is that law-abiding citizens, ordinary men and women in the street, do not know what is happening in our Province.
There is a lack of information coming from the Government as well as misinformation. A good example of that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). He observed that the Secretary of State had told us that he had received no communication from the Irish Republic about parades. The Secretary of State could have gone further and said that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has had communication. So there is misinformation to some extent.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State was grossly insulted last week during a meeting at which I was present. I deplored that insult to a member of Her Majesty's Government, which was uncalled for. However, there has been some ambiguity in what the Government have told us and what has emanated from the Northern Ireland Office for the past 13 years. People become sceptical and disheartened and suspicious. Over the years, the people of Northern Ireland have seen the liaison by the Government with the Provisional IRA. It took place against the sound, solid and reasoned advice of members of my party. The Government were told, "You cannot deal with those people, they are terrorists. They are not prepared, irrespective of what indications they may appear to give, to deal with a democratic Government in the normal way." That advice was not heeded and the liaison was a disaster.
We advised also against political status. That was not heeded and the result was disaster. We advised against the setting up of a Sinn Fein advice centre. The Government gave the Provisional IRA money and said, "Go and take over that incident centre or that advice centre." That was a tremendous boost for the IRA. Again, the Government did not listen to our advice.
More recently, we told the Government, "Do not allow a person who says he is going to the ballot box with an Armalite in his hand to take a seat in local government." Again, they did not take our advice. Unionists are blamed if they do not keep their councils peaceful. It is very difficult for Unionists to keep the councils peaceful when they are sitting opposite people who they know have been


involved with murders and in murder. Some councils are succeeding. It is not for the want of trying, but I believe that most councils have not succeeded. I accept that there are one or two councils where a wholehearted effort has yet to be made to overcome the handicap of having a Sinn Fein member sitting in the chamber. I hope that all our councils will endeavour to overcome that handicap in a way which will not allow these killers to enjoy propaganda. We suffer from Provisional IRA-inspired propaganda and the IRA will do its best to drive the ordinary decent person in the Province over the brink. The Government must endeavour not to help them.
I shall contrast what happens in the Irish Republic with what happens in Ulster when we deal with Provos. A week ago there was the sad murder of Garda Sergeant Morrissey. A member of the Provisional IRA was arrested and charged with his murder. On 2 July in The Irish Times we saw a photograph of a screaming suspect being shoved into a car by five burly policemen. In the Irish Independent we saw a photograph of a suspect who was having to be virtually carried into court from the hospital by two members of the Garda Siochana. If that had happened in Ulster it would have been called police brutality. The Americans would have been involved, hon. Members would have been involved and the Government of the Republic of Ireland would have been deeply involved in protesting about police brutality.
When a complaint was made in court about the treatment of the suspect, the judge said that there was no case. He did not take Provo propaganda at face value. Let me make it perfectly clear, I am not criticising the Garda Siochana. I believe it has done a difficult job in facing up to the IRA when it has endeavoured to subvert law and order in that country.
Fifteen years ago it was the Ulster Special Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary which were guilty of a not very clearly defined crime against the minority community. Then it was the Ulster Defence Regiment and now it is the judiciary. Next it will be the police. Away from the forces of law and order it has recently become the Orangemen. Why does the Northern Ireland Office give credibility to those who continue to spew out this vitriolic propaganda against our people?
Can we not look at what has really happened over the years in Ulster? Can we not realise that for the last 15 years, in the face of an IRA onslaught, the Orange institution has stood out against any retaliatory violence? I can say that because I am not a member of the Orange Order. That stand should make the order proud of its tolerance and its strength. It has stood in a way that should make the Government and the Northern Ireland Office a little less sensitive about propaganda relating to traditional marches.
How wrong I found the Secretary of State to be this evening when he talked about the parades being cheerful and festive. Indeed they are cheerful and festive, but that is not their purpose. The purpose is to enable those who have a Protestant and Unionist heritage to demonstrate it in a lawful way. He is telling us we should not go into certain areas because we provoke the minority. How on earth could the Orange Order, which has protected the minority for many years and stopped retaliation against it, be provocative? Is it not a great deal more provocative that the nationalists who are in charge of Londonderry council have done their best to alienate the Protestant community?

They have driven that community, including the last policeman who was murdered, from the west bank of the Foyle.
When the nationalist-controlled council in Omagh took over it stated categorically it was all right to kill council employees who were members of the security forces. Has the vice-chairman of Magherafelt council not said he would not dispute that point because he believes that the dictates of the Irish Republican Army council are correct? In the face of that provocation, how can the Secretary of State ask the Unionist people to give up their right at least to show that Northern Ireland is Unionist and part of the United Kingdom? That is what we would be doing if we gave up our traditional parade routes.
He is saying, "Of course, those routes have changed. Members of the minority community now live along those routes and you did not have that 20 or 25 years ago." He is really saying, "You must allow yourselves to be driven out bit by bit and you must concede to the sort of philosophy which exists in Londonderry, Omagh and Magherafelt." He must understand that that is the way my section of the community looks at things.

Mr. Roy Beggs: rose——

Mr. Maginnis: I should prefer not to give way.
Dublin's role is treated with suspicion. Can we forget that Charlie Haughey was tried for supplying arms at the very start of the troubles; that the money for those arms was laundered through a public company in the Irish Republic? Can we forget that on every possible occasion Peter Barry and Mr. Noonan have done their best to discredit the Ulster Defence Regiment? Despite his overtures, the Taoiseach himself, Mr. FitzGerald, delivered in America a speech which was harmful to the work being done by our security forces and endangered the lives of people in them.
Unfortunately, our greatest difficulty is getting proper liaison with the Northern Ireland Office. I should like to read to the House a letter I had from a Minister's office in the Northern Ireland Office. I will leave the Minister unnamed, but I was told he would be undertaking an official engagement in my constituency. The letter went on:
Considerations of security oblige us to confine advance notice of the details of the visit to those directly involved, and I regret that for this reason I cannot be more informative about his visit to your constituency.
Does that Minister not realise that I hold a commission from Her Majesty; that I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence of this House, and that I have had the privilege of a top-secret briefing in the Pentagon and in defence establishments in this county? Does he believe that he can trust me less than he can trust a civil servant? Does he forget that Bill McConnell, a prison officer, was murdered at the behest of someone employed in the Civil Service? I do not want to condemn all civil servants.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member's criticism of the letter he received has been brought to my notice and he will receive a letter of apology. There is a real problem here which he is familiar with and which we cannot discuss now. It is one to which we have riot yet found the right answer and I want to discuss it with the leader of his party and with the party.

Mr. Maginnis: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I ask him to think in terms of the majority community. I am not talking about the majority Unionist


community, but about the majority who want to live in peace one with the other. He cannot continue to place himself in the middle as a referee. I do not need my dealings with my Catholic neighbours to be refereed by anyone. I am willing and able to conduct my own liaison with my Roman Catholic neighbours and I am able to live at peace with them. I believe the vast majority of them wish to live in peace with me.
I want to see the Secretary of State dealing with a situation of which he is aware: that in one county in my constituency 73 murders have been committed. Six of those were murders of Catholics by Protestants. Four of them have been solved, but 67 of them have been murders of Protestants and Roman Catholics by the IRA and not a single one has been solved. I want to see the Minister dealing with that and I want to see him dealing with the rights and interests of the RUC and the UDR. I want to see UDR full-timers having a proper career structure and I hope that he has been making overtures to the MOD about that.
Some of our full-time police reservists have been serving for 12 years and I want to see them being given pension rights because they are being treated abominably over security of employment. I want to see our elected representatives who want to work, who are willing to work and who have tried to work for peace, being given an opportunity to do so without undue interference from another country, the Irish Republic.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that he was not a member of the Orange Order. I have some Ulster ancestry, but I am ineligible for membership of the Orange Order. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) knows that I respect the modern Orange Order as a legitimate expression of loyal sentiment and Protestant solidarity that has generally proved to be a responsible influence for restraint in the present troubles. I therefore understand how keenly Northern Ireland Members must feel at the curtailing of traditional parades by the authority which they support. It seems a poor reward for moderation, yet it is far-fetched to allege that the re-routeing of a parade is the result of a diktat from Dublin.
I myself heard Mr. Peter Barry lay somewhat exaggerated claims to a locus standi in respect of Northern Ireland, but we must expect the Irish Government to express opinions to Her Majesty's Government when the affairs of the United Kingdom and the Republic are so closely knit and we seek ever closer collaboration between our respective security forces.
There is nothing new in southern representations about the minority in Northern Ireland. In 1922, Sir James Craig was talking in London to Michael Collins and assuring him of arrangements for the protection of Northern Catholics.
The motion is founded on "conflicting unofficial reports", but during today's business questions the Leader of the House said that we do not base our business on press speculation. That is not the proper foundation of public policy. It is for the Government to judge how, when and where it is best to carry on diplomacy and dialogue on matters of common concern to the kingdom and Republic, and it is then for Parliament to assess the results. However,

I agree with what has been said about cause for suspicion due to lack of information. I think that the Secretary of State had sympathy with the suggestion of a White Paper.
The Secretary of State is responsible to Crown and Parliament for law and order in the Province and the Chief Constable has his own independent part to play. I hope that the statement issued by the RUC will be placed in the Library. Part of it states:
It should be clearly understood that it is the duty of the police to maintain community stability and public order at all times regardless of the political or religious persuasion of those who threaten or challenge the peace.
It adds:
The number of parades has increased and, regrettably, in some instances the standard of conduct has deteriorated … It is intolerable that police officers carrying out their duty should be subjected to abuse, personal threats and physical injury, as has happened on several recent occasions.
The decisions that the Chief Constable and Secretary of State must take are unenviably difficult. Let us suppose that all parades proceeded according to custom and that serious rioting resulted. The police and the Government would be assailed from all sides. However that may be, the shenanigans at Castlewellan and Cookstown and the disturbances in the Shankill are a disgrace. So is the blackguarding of the Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Assembly by a member of the Democratic Unionist party. I would have expected the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) to express some regret at what happened, even if the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), is unable to be present to do that himself.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Very briefly, because I intend to bring my remarks to a close very shortly.

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman can take it from me, on behalf of my colleagues, that we genuinely believe that the Secretary of State clearly misled the people of Northern Ireland. I therefore make no apology on behalf of my colleagues. Indeed, other members of the Assembly —including the Chairman of the Committee who was interviewed on television — agreed that the right hon. Gentleman should be told that he had made such misleading statements.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I regret that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. Those who want thus to display their loyalism should understand that they are opening a breach in the national unity of the United Kingdom at a time when a diabolical conspiracy to blast men, women and children in our mainland resorts had brought it home in Great Britain that we are all caught up in one anti-terrorist struggle and that we must win it together.
There is admiration on this side of the water — perhaps there should be more—of the restraint of the majority in Northern Ireland through more than a decade and a half of Republican terror. But there is scant sympathy on this side of the water for those who beat drums at the doors of those in whom those drums inspire an atavistic dread. There is no sympathy at all for those who would press an insistence on traditional observance to the point of conflict with the hard-pressed RUC who have dared and endured so much and for whom the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke so well. Unfortunately, it is a far cry from the times when, for


example, the events of 1689 could be commemorated in Londonderry by both bishops and the whole community of that great city.
I conclude with a few words on the political and constitutional aspects of stability. I suspect that Ministers are now beginning to realise that the Northern Ireland Assembly is more limited in its role and potential than in its cost to the taxpayer. The fullest administrative devolution is desirable, but legislative devolution in any terms acceptable to Parliament is impracticable. The agreement would not exist.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) spoke of one tradition being fearful of domination by the other tradition. Surely the lesson of Stormont, with all its virtues, is that the minority is safest under Westminster. We are told that that is second best, but it is a second best that least divides the people of Northern Ireland and allows co-operation with Dublin to proceed unbedevilled either by separatist hopes or Unionist fears.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Because of pressure of time, I shall not comment on the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) about the future of institutions in Northern Ireland.
I wish to address myself to the content of the speeches that have so far been made by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland and to what they have not said. They have spoken passionately about stability, but not one has to any extent addressed his mind to the problems of the minority and why, among the minority population, the great majority find it very difficult to accept the role of the police and the UDR. No Northern Ireland Member has said why those two institutions, which are responsible for maintaining law and order and stability, do not have the support of that population. When one adds to that the problems that we now face over the reported statements and attitudes of the judiciary on aspects of co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, it appears that those institutions do not, and cannot, at present have the support of the minority.
It therefore behoves members of the majority to go out of their way to say something positive to help their fellow citizens to arrive at that support for the institutions within Northern Ireland. All the speeches to which I have listened so far, and I have heard them all, have failed to do that.
The amendment talks of trying to achieve some cohesion between the communities. What positive acts will the Government take to try to achieve the allegiance of the minority population to the institutions of the state? By "allegiance" I do not mean that they must necessarily feel that they have to surrender their identity, that they must be loyal to the Union Jack or anything of that nature, but a general sense of feeling and confidence within the community that they will be treated fairly. That is what I am looking for, no more. There need be no surrender of identity. They feel that this does not exist in the community. It is a question not of political or national aspirations, but of a general feeling of fairness. They do not believe that in the institutions of security within the state—whether it is the RUC, or, more particularly, the UDR, and now what is happening in the judiciary—they are likely to be treated fairly. Until the Government can come forward with positive proposals which seem to the

minority community to do that, the stability that we all want to see, whichever way we see the future of the Province, is not going to be present.
My second point relates to the question raised by the Secretary of State about suddenly throwing suspicion on the support that he is receiving from the Government of the Republic in terms of security. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State could enlarge upon those areas where he feels the Republic is not giving 100 per cent. support to maintain security, to hunt the terrorists and to cut the power of those who seek to destabilise both communities.
I say to hon. Members from the whole of the Unionist tradition, whether it be Conservative and Unionist or Ulster Unionist, that they cannot expect the Republic of Ireland to shoulder the burden of security and not have a powerful voice and interest in saying, "What are the causes of instability which cause us as taxpayers to have to put so much of our wealth into security?" Those figures show that their spending, in percentage and per capita terms, far outweigh spending in the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, it must be accepted that if we expect to have responsibility and co-operation from the Republic, we cannot expect the Republic not to take a powerful and realisable interest in what is going on within the six counties.

Mr. James Couchman: Last Wednesday I sat in this Chamber for four and a half hours listening to the debate on the continuance Order for the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It was a singularly dispiriting experience and I found myself becoming ever more depressed. It would be invidious to offer a critique of each of the lengthy and barren offerings to which we were treated. The verbal cock-fighting came as no real surprise, but the speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux.) left me with a feeling of hopelessness such as I have rarely felt. In short, during his bleak speech he offered no hope that the intractability of the Northern Ireland situation as it is presently cast will ever give way to the sort of discussion and consultation that can lead to a lasting political solution. For those of us who hope, perhaps naively, for an end to the tragedy there was scant encouragement from last Wednesday's proceedings.
English Members are reticent about fishing in the muddy waters of Northern Ireland politics and reluctant to intrude in what seems like a family affair. That circumspection in no way lessens the concern we feel about the continuing violence and political instability in the Province. If Northern Ireland politics was purely the domestic concern of Ulster politicians then I should be the last person to consider himself qualified by two brief visits during the last year to offer any thoughts at all on the situation. But of course there is an English dimension, even a dimension impinging on my own constituency in south-east England. There is the dimension of transfer payments from east to west across the Irish sea each year to support the Northern Ireland economy. There is the enormous dimension of our troops being in Northern Ireland for 15 years and being killed and maimed for a time longer now than the two great wars, the Boer War and the Korean War put together. That, incidentally, is where my own constituency is concerned because in that constituency is the Royal Engineers military engineering school and a regimental headquarters.
In terms of the life of this House, Northern Ireland politics consume a great deal of the energy and time of Government Ministers and hon. Members. I feel constrained to speak for just a few minutes this evening because of the gloomy reports emanating from the English-Irish talks presently going on. It has been suggested that some right hon. and hon. Members almost hope that they will fail. I believe that that attitude is utterly wrong, because to deny any Irish dimension to the Northern Ireland situation is to bury one's head in the sand.
I would be the last person to try to force upon the majority population any form of union consideration or even closer liaison with the Republic against the majority wish, but it is unrealistic to say that there is no Irish dimension. I recognise all of those features of Irish life which make and maintain the division between the communities. I recognise the feeling of vulnerability on the part of the majority population when viewing any constitutional or structural change that has as its aim closer relations with the Republic.
I understand and recognise the essentially tribal dimensions of the Northern Irish situation but I am forced to ask just how long we must wait for the Northern Ireland politicians — most of them are in the Chamber this evening—to use their influence to bring some sense and sanity to the situation and to allow talks to develop which may lead to a lasting solution. How long will it be before the House may dare to see an end to all the Acts it has had to pass in recent years to maintain some semblance of order in the Province? How long will the economic life of Ulster be disrupted by violence? How long will the bomb and the bullet continue to subjugate the ballot box?
It is a cliché to suggest that only a political solution can defeat the gunmen in Northern Ireland, but it is true. That is the only lasting way to peace. I beg all those who are influential in Northern Irish politics and affairs to examine their position, to review their stand in relation to the present discussions and, what is more, to use their influence to foster any political initiative that may emerge. The rapid collapse of discussions and initiatives of last September, if repeated, can only deepen the despair and bitterness on which the violence and hatred thrives. There must one day be an end to the intransigence and intractability on both sides if a just solution is to be reached. I would ask that people use their influence to make that intransigence give way to what is a very simple goal—the peace in the Province to which we all aspire.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Like the good Presbyterian he is, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), when he moved the motion, defined stability. I felt that he had missed the most significant aspect of stability — that it is a relative phenomenon. I suppose it is self-evident that what would be considered constitutional stability in the Lebanon or Cyprus would be a nightmare in Norway, Sweden or Switzerland. What might be considered a stable internal security situation in Spain certainly would not be tolerated in the USSR. Just as stability is relative between countries, so it is relative within countries. I am not simply talking about what we might mean by stability in Northern Ireland vis-a-vis stability in Great Britain—we have evidence

during the past year of variations in what might be considered stability between Yorkshire and perhaps the south-east of England.
I do not aspire to the values of Chelsea or Bath or any of the other areas where stability would be much admired by many people in this House. I do not in any way criticise those people who hold strongly to the personal and social values associated with those communities. Equally, I hope that they would not belittle the personal and social values which I hold in Northern Ireland and which make Northern Ireland distinctive within the United Kingdom, just as there are certain characteristics which make other regions of the United Kingdom distinctive.
All we can hope for is relative stability. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) may wish fervently for peace, but he may have to conclude one day that peace as he defines it may never exist in Northern Ireland. He should not be reticient about getting into what he describes as a muddy pool. England helped create the muddy pool. The House contributed substantially to the muddy pool, if it is there, and every hon. Member in the House has a responsibility to deliberate upon what goes on in that muddy pool. We look forward to hearing other contributions from the hon. Member.
I should like to see a return to relative stability. I would prefer it to be the stability we had prior to the terrorist campaign but I would settle for the relative stability of the 1977–79 period when public confidence in Northern Ireland reached its high water mark of the past 17 years. Public confidence is the key to stability. Public confidence does not mean obtaining the confidence of the majority of the minority. If it is achieved by that means, it is being bought at too high a price, especially if the public confidence of the majority of the majority is being sacrificed. That is where the balance has gone wrong.
Since 1979 public confidence has ebbed away. Occasionally the ebbing away has been stemmed by the actions of the Prime Minister when she has intervened, but the incompetence of 1980–81, the double talk and double standards of 1981–84 and the ambivalence of 1985 have caused public confidence to drift to its lowest point in the past decade.
I do not want to allude to any single issue as causing the fall in public confidence. There has been a combination of factors—the Anglo-Irish process and the collaboration of the Government with the Sinn Fein exploitation of the ballot box and the bullet. If we layer on top of that the inept handling of the parades issue, we find ourselves standing on the edge of an abyss that has been created by the Government. A fortnight ago there was controversy and concern in Northern Ireland about the first two points, but everything has been brought to a head by the inept and ham-fisted handling of parades.
Let me go back to the Anglo-Irish process that is sometimes referred to as a dialogue. There are four parties to the process—Her Majesty's Government, the Irish Government, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Unionists. Two parties, I presume, know what they are talking about. A third, the SDLP, pretends to know, thinks it knows or perhaps does know what the other two parties are talking about.

Mr. John David Taylor: The Dublin Government meets the SDLP after each meeting of the two Prime Ministers.

Mr. McCusker: My right hon. Friend tells me that the SDLP is invited to have consultations with the Irish element of the dialogue. Unionists do not have that advantage. We are not consulted or advised by Her Majesty's Government; we have to glean what we can from the leaks to the press and from what the SDLP tells us. Clearly someone is lying. I do not know who the liar is. The deputy leader of the SDLP has assured us during the past few weeks that the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic has persistently raised the issue of parades with Her Majesty's Government as part of the on-going process.
When my future and the future of my children are at stake, it is not good enough to be told that the discussions have to be kept in confidence and that we cannot be told what is happening. If the Secretary of State tells me that, he will raise my suspicions and the suspicions of others in the community. Equally, he cannot say to me that issues such as security strategy, future forms of government and police tactics are not part of the discussions. They must be an essential part, or the Irish Government would not think it worth while to continue the discussions. Those matters raise genuine fears.
I noticed that some of the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office laughed when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South said that, whether or not these things are facts, the people of Northern Ireland believe they are facts. They do not need politicians to tell them lies or to raise their fears. The people feel it in their hearts.
Whatever number was in Portadown last night, whether it was 20,000, 30,000 or whatever, it was a very large number. It was a bigger number of people than I have ever seen in Portadown before, and I have lived there for the best part of my life. They came there with little exhortation from politicians. They were there to react not simply against the ban on parades but against the Anglo-Irish dialogue and the exploitation by Sinn Fein of the ballot box and the bullet.
The bland assertion of the Secretary of State that Sinn Fein can be out-manoeuvred and out-voted, and that it is important that the world should see how little real support it has at the ballot box, does not wash with a community that has had to take so much from Sinn Fein. We now know that a former Sinn Fein candidate is part of the group that has been arrested in connection with the planned bombing campaign on the mainland, that an elected Sinn Fein councillor in Northern Ireland is being questioned about terrorist offences, and that some Sinn Fein councillors are convicted terrorists. They were able to stand for election only because there is automatic remission of 50 per cent. of prison sentences in Northern Ireland. The one advantage that a terrorist has in Northern Ireland, irrespective of the sentence he gets for whatever crime he has committed, is that the sentence has to be cut in half.
The feeling in the Unionist community about Sinn Fein must be understood by the Secretary of State because that lies behind much of what we are facing today. The average Northern Ireland Unionist thinks that if someone murders a Member of Parliament or a councillor he becomes a Member of Parliament or a councillor; if someone blows up council premises and kills council employees, he becomes a member of that council; if someone murders a judge or a magistrate, later a judge or magistrate will find in his favour when he seeks protection in pursuit of his despicable ends, whatever they may be.
The Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland has admitted a convicted terrorist to train as a lawyer, but he has not expressed contrition or regret for what he has done. We will never know whether he regrets his crime. Automatic 50 per cent. remission means that it is not necessary to determine whether terrorists regret what they have done. In my constituency there is a senior social worker who was formerly a convicted terrorist. He may have regretted his former acts but there has been no impartial assessment of whether he has done so. All these things force people in my community further and further on to the defensive. They ask what the Government are doing about this.
The IRA has told us what its objective is. It says that it intends to take power in Ireland through the ballot box and bullet. By our behaviour, are we not assisting the IRA to achieve that objective? The Secretary of State has told me that it is important that the people should know how little support the Provisional IRA has. The Provisional IRA clearly does not see that as a disadvantage. At the moment it is happy to settle for the support of one third of the adult Roman Catholic community in elections. If there is an advantage for us in the Government's policy, I should like to know what the disadvantage is for the Provisional IRA. It does not appear to see any disadvantage.
I want to deal briefly with the Portadown parade because the right hon. Gentleman knows how strongly I feel, not simply about whether we walk or not but about the consequences if we walk. Despite what has been said in the media the walk in Portadown by Orangemen is from the town of Portadown to a parish church to worship. It is not a parade of Orangemen through a Catholic district of Portadown. That is incidental to the walk.
I have gone into detail with the Minister about the location. There are three routes to Drumcree church, which is set in the Protestant hinterland of Portadown. Portadown itself is a 75 per cent. Protestant town and the tragedy is that the three routes from the town to the church all go through Catholic areas. That is coincidental. There is no ideal route. One of the routes that is recommended as a return route from the church is through a Catholic area which numerically is much stronger than the one from which the parade is being re-routed. When he does not know what to do in circumstances of that kind, the Secretary of State should pause and consider doing nothing, because to do nothing might be better than to do something which may create trouble in the town.
The police cannot do their job without majority support. The number of people in Portadown last night will not be there on Sunday morning. Those who will be walking to church on Sunday morning will not want confrontation with the police, but there may be others who will. Even if the police stop those men from walking to church next Sunday morning, what will happen between then and the 12th? What will happen on the eleventh night when 20 or 30 bonfires are blazing around Portadown and more alcohol is being consumed than is good for those people? What will happen in the few hours between then and the start of the parade? No matter how many police and troops are put into Portadown, they will be unable to stop people from going down that road for the wrong reasons.
I appeal to the Secretary of State and, through him, to the Chief Constable, to see sense. This parade has taken place for over 150 years. It causes the minimum amount


of aggravation. No party tunes are played; there is no flaunting of colours; there is no beating of drums. It may not be exactly what the Secretary of State or the Chief Constable want, but if the parade takes place on Sunday it will be in the best interests of all concerned.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It will be impossible for me to deal with all the points that have been raised in the debate. However, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I welcome the fact that the theme of the debate and the motion on the Order Paper relate to stability in Northern Ireland. Everybody wishes stability to be created in Northern Ireland, but I take note of the point of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) that stability can be relative between countries and regions and, indeed, over a period. The concept of stability in Northern Ireland today is different from what it was 15, 10, or perhaps even four years ago. The graffiti in west Belfast, querying whether there was life before death, touched a chord, but I hope that the times that gave rise to that have passed for ever in Northern Ireland. The Government and the security forces will make every effort to maintain the new stability that has been created in Northern Ireland, but responsibility for maintaining that stability rests not only upon the Government and the police. That is a point to which I hope to return later.
The House owes a very great debt to the people of Northern Ireland for their courage, resilience and endurance during the most vicious and sustained period of terrorism that modern Europe has experienced. The House owes to their elected representatives understanding because of the unique burdens that they bear. They represent a society that has been torn apart and has had to endure terrorism on a massive scale for a very long period. They act honourably as the democratic representatives of a divided society. Not least are we in their debt because of the personal danger that they face in doing their duty to their Northern Ireland constituents. Many of them, not least the hon. Member for Upper Bann, have seen constituents, friends and colleagues murdered and maimed by the men of violence.
We owe a very great deal to the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and we have a duty to listen to, appreciate and be sensitive to their unique anxieties. Those anxieties have been presented in a constructive way in this debate by the Official Unionist party. But it owes something to this House and also to those who are privileged to share in Government—namely, recognition of our good faith in seeking to govern Northern Ireland fairly, even-handedly and, dare I say it, generously within the context of the constitutional guarantee about the future place of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. As we grapple with the complex economic and political problems that face Northern Ireland and pursue the eradication of terrorism, we are entitled to the recognition that we are acting in good faith on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
I hope that the House will examine the problems of Northern Ireland on the basis of fact rather than of mythology.
I turn to one of the themes that has run through this afternoon's debate: parades and marches in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spelt out the aim of those parades and marches: to demonstrate in a lawful way their adherence to their protestant heritage. That deserves respect, but the key word is "lawful." It cannot be lawful to ignore to seek to set aside a re-routeing order by the Chief Constable or a banning order by the Secretary of State. That is breaking the law. It cannot be justified or defended.
It is worth while putting the problem in its proper context. The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that a move is being made towards completely overturning the current practice on parades and marches in Northern Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, during the last marching season, as it is called, in Northern Ireland, 2,200 parades had to be policed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Many of those marches had their routes adjusted by mutual agreement between the police and the organisers — whether they were Republican, Loyalist, Orange, or any other kind of parade—that it would be sensible to make minor adjustments.
Would that this were always the case and that it was unnecessary for the Chief Constable to impose a re-routeing order or for my right hon. Friend to ban a parade. However, in the interests of harmony in the community, sustaining law and order and avoiding the dangers of large-scale rioting, there are occasions when, in the professional judgment of the Chief Constable, action is necessary. But there is no policy which prevents people from marching or walking in recognition of their Protestant heritage. There is no political direction behind all this and there is no Dublin role. To make the distinction that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone did not make, the representations in the question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary related to banning a parade on St. Patrick's day in Portadown. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comments related to the present marching season.
The concern that is felt about parades and marches in Northern Ireland is not a recent phenomenon. I have considered the Chief Constable's reports not only for 1984, but for 1980–1984. In each report he drew attention to this problem in different ways. In 1980 he referred to large numbers of police personnel having to be deployed
to deal with politically inspired parades and demonstrations, many of which pose a serious threat to law and order.
In different ways he has drawn attention during the last five years to problems that face the police in Northern Ireland because of parades.
For the handful of parades that might be affected by a re-routeing order or, exceptionally, by a banning order, we have to depend upon the professional advice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It has a difficult job to do in Northern Ireland. For the RUC to be assaulted by representatives of the majority community in Northern Ireland is unacceptable to the vast majority of law-abiding Unionists.
I can only re-emphasise what has been said on a number of occasions about the dialogue between the sovereign Governments of London and Dublin. It is carried on entirely within the parameters defined by the Chequers communiqué. The exaggerated fears of the hon. Member


for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) have to be set in the context of that cast-iron guarantee. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question, That the original words stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER, forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House invites the Government to continue to promote measures which encourage peace, stability and good relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland; invites both communities to work to these ends; recognises the contribution which improved relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland can make in furthering these objectives; and recognises the need to maintain a firm security policy under the law.

Birmingham City Council Bill (By Order)

As amended, further considered.

New clause 2

RESTRICTION ON CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

'(1) The Council shall not make payments in respect of prescribed expenditure incurred in the exercise of the powers of this Act before the first authorised day in excess of £2,000,000.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
the first authorised day" means the authorised day during which the Council first exercise their powers under section 5 (Closing of streets for motor races) of this Act;
prescribed expenditure" has the meaning assigned to it by section 71 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.'—[Sir Reginald Eyre.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 Pm

Sir Reginald Eyre: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time new clause 3—Annual revenue account:
'(1) The Council shall prepare a revenue account not later than 30th September in the financial year following that year.

(2) A revenue account must show a true and fair view of the financial result of the Council having exercised the powers of this Act in the financial year to which it relates.

(3) If at the end of any financial year any revenue account is in deficit, the amount of the deficit shall be charged—
(a) in the first instance to any reserve fund established by them; and
(b) subject thereto to the general rate fund.

(4) In subsection (3) above, the reference in paragraph (a) to a reserve fund established by the Council is a reference to a fund the sole purpose of which is to meet any expenditure incurred by them in connection with the exercise of the powers of this Act.

(5) If the revenue accounts for the first five financial years in which the Council provide motor races show a cumulative deficit the power to provide motor races shall cease to be exercisable by the Council.'

Sir Reginald Eyre: It will be remembered that the purpose of the Bill is to give the city of Birmingham an opportunity to provide once a year a great tourist attraction in the form of a motor race and associated family attractions on a carefully chosen pattern of roads near the city centre. It is believed that the event will attract considerable media interest in a new and attractive part of Birmingham and will give great encouragement to the motor industry in the west midlands and to the many thousands of people in Birmingham and the west midlands whose work is connected with the motor industry.
New clause 2 meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in amendment No. 16, and I hope that, in view of my new clause, she will withdraw that amendment. The new clause restricts capital expenditure to £2 million prior to the first motor race event. It therefore improves the Bill by taking account of the points that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) raised on 24 June, when a defined limit of the kind that I propose was sought. I felt that both hon. Members had expressed points of concern that would be understand in Birmingham, and I am happy to say that the new clause meets the points that they raised.
The council expects that the expenditure will be of a lesser sum, but the figure specified in the new clause takes


account of regulations that could be imposed in regard, for example, to safety requirements, and of unforeseen contingencies.
Having expressed the hope that amendment No. 16 will be withdrawn, as I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in his place, I hope that he will agree, following the discussion that we had at a previous stage, not to proceed with amendment No. 7 which stands in his name.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will new clauses 2 and 3 improve the Bill?

Sir Reginald Eyre: I had hoped that it was clear from my opening remarks that I had tabled them on the basis that they would improve the Bill.

Mr. Rooker: In that case, it follows that my comments were aimed at improving the Bill. I do not intend to proceed with amendment No. 7 in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I have always accepted that the hon. Gentleman's purpose was to improve the measure. I am grateful to him for the attention that he has given to these matters and for his decision not to proceed with amendment No. 7.
New clause 3 is also designed to meet points that were made in our earlier debates. This provision meets my undertaking that if the revenue accounts for the first five financial years in which the council provides motor races show a cumulative deficit, the power to provide motor races shall cease to be exercisable by the council. The advantage of an adjourned Report stage is that I now have an opportunity to table the new clauses, rather than to amend the Bill in another place, the course that I undertook to adopt when we last debated the Bill.
The council's figures suggest, even on a pessimistic basis, that sufficient operating profits will be generated to repay the initial capital cost within the five-year period. However, the project may do much better than that, and it is hoped that that will be the case.

Mr. Rooker: I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) for tabling the new clauses. When we debated the Bill a week ago, we were told that such amendments could be made only in the other place, and even then there was no guarantee that the Bill would be amended. My hon. Friends and I appreciate that that was not the fault of the hon. Gentleman.
We were told originally that such amendments as we required could not even be countenanced. A week ago we were told that the council, the promoter of the Bill, would accept no financial limit. In other words, we were asked to sign a blank cheque, Birmingham city council having decided to sign what was, in effect, a blank cheque.
I recall asking the hon. Member for Hall Green what figure he would accept on behalf of the council, if a limit of £1·7 million was not acceptable. I wondered whether he thought the figure should be £2 million or £3·5 million. The hon. Member for Hall Green was placed in a difficult situation, not of his own making, because of the incompetence of the promoters of the Bill, including the parliamentary draftsman, the agents and those responsible in the city council. Until recently they had not listened to the views of hon. Members.
It is a disgrace to think, following our deliberations on the Bill on 24 June, that Councillor Bosworth, leader of the Tory group in Birmingham, described the concerns that my hon. Friends and I had expressed about the financial aspects of the Bill as "sheer humbug." Councillor Bosworth told the world about my views on the race, yet I have never discussed the race with him or been at discussions which he has attended when the road race has been considered. My views are the views which I put forward in Parliament, together with my hon. Friends, that there should be no question of signing a blank cheque, which the council has agreed to do, and that we should seek to make this a better Bill, and to do that we have had to use parliamentary procedure.
We agree that there is now a limit provided in the Bill of £2 million—somewhat higher than the £1·1 million figure which the council first talked about — and a contingency of up to £1·5 million. At least now there is a legal limit. This could have been done a long time ago.
As I said in an intervention, I do not intend to raise the issue of external sponsorship under amendment No. 7. On the other hand, I note that Councillor Charlton, the chief whip of the controlling Labour group, who is a good friend of mine, was quoted the day after our last debate as stating that Birmingham city council said that it had always intended commerce and industry to provide some of the finance. I presume that that still stands, and that, in saying that, the whip of the controlling group means that an attempt will be made to get some finance from industry and commerce. I think that industry and commerce will be more willing now to put its hand in his pocket in the knowledge that the council now has a legal limit on what it can spend and that we are no longer looking into a bottomless pit. To that extent, I welcome new clause 2.
New clause 3 meets the points covered in our earlier amendments and what we said about the initial instructions on 1 April. We were told that these were rubbish and could not be countenanced in any circumstances, yet they are included on the Order Paper to be written into the Bill before it goes to the other place. It makes one wonder about the unnecessary waste of ratepayers' money up to now. Under new clause 3, the extra costs involved in consideration of the Bill on the Floor of the House on two occasions will have to be accounted for.
My hon. Friends and I do not intend to prolong the debate. We have achieved a remarkable success, given the intransigence that we met last December in the refusal even to discuss with us the contents of the Bill.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I wish to respond in part to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said and to support the effect of new clauses 2 and 3 and other amendments.
It may well be true that there has been some confusion in discussing this matter because there may have been a lack of communication between the council and hon. Members concerned. Many of us tried to ease this path when we were contacted by the council and went to some lengths to try to arrange liaison meetings. It is fair and proper to say that there was no confusion at this end. It is fair and proper also that the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr, for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) have raised these questions to ensure that clauses are enshrined in the Bill in order to give a degree of protection


to the ratepayers of the city of Birmingham and all those who have financial interest in the measure. I congratulate them on the effectiveness of their representations, and I trust that the amendments will meet the case in full.
Hon. Members who have been in favour of what I consider to be the exciting concept of a city road race in Birmingham have learned to be patient. It was at least 12 years ago that, as a member of Birmingham city council, I first voted in favour of the Bill. We lost that day, but the idea has rightly gained momentum. Birmingham should be allowed that which it wants, and it does indeed want the road race.
I was impressed when I spent a whole Sunday—I did not see any other hon. Members present — at the rehearsal of the road race.

Ms. Clare Short: What about me?

Mr. Bevan: If I have maligned any hon. Member, I apologise. I thought that I was the only hon. Member present.

Mr. Rooker: There were 250,000 people present.

Mr. Bevan: Indeed there were, but there were only 18 or so people in the city of Birmingham stand where I was sitting, and no hon. Members were there. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members wish to declare an interest in having attended the road race, I will be happy to withdraw. In that case, I congratulate them on undoubtedly having enjoyed the day and the spectacle and shared the joys of the 250,000 people who watched the road race and cheered to inordinate lengths after it had finished.
It is imperative to remember that this is a people's race. It is a race in support of the new Birmingham concept and of the tourism interest in Birmingham which is helping to solve some of the abundant unemployment problems from which Birmingham suffers.
Speaking humbly as chairman of the tourism committee, I have noticed that in my constituency, in which there has been a promotion of the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international airport and Birmingham international station, the unemployment rate is substantially less than in other areas. [Laughter.] It is no good Opposition Members laughing. It would be better to appreciate that many channels of employment have to be used. If, in this respect, we find the formula, that will attract people and bring some credit to the city as a car showcase, which is what Birmingham undoubtedly is, as a car manufacturing town.

Mr. Robin Corbett: A city.

Mr. Bevan: Indeed, a city which is dependent on the car industry and its derivatives, which must encourage the promotion of a car race.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is giving the context of his remarks, but I hope that he will come to the restrictions on capital expenditure, which is the subject of the new clause.

Mr. Bevan: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, I give way to the hon. Member for Ladywood.

Ms. Short: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would comment on two points. First, the event to which

he has referred attended by 250,000 people was free. The road race is projected to cost between £5 and £25 per ticket, and that might make some difference. Secondly, the city council told us that it expects only 20 full-time jobs to be generated by the road race. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to exaggerate its potential for job creation in the city.

Mr. Bevan: Indeed not. Bearing in mind your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speaking strictly to the financial aspects of the new clauses, I think that it is imperative in the context of the financial restrictions that an admission fee be paid to attend the road race. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ladywood would not wish this to be a charge upon the ratepayers or the taxpayers. Indeed, the essence of some of the earlier amendments was to ensure that no loss would be incurred by the citizens of Birmingham. It is therefore automatic that some reasonable charge should be levied. We do not dispute that there must be some charge. The Bill aims to attract sponsorship. I anticipate that sponsorship will be forthcoming from firms in Birmingham—perhaps in my constituency — which will be proud to contribute, provided that the financial ground rules are well laid.
We must not denigrate the creation of 20 full-time jobs. They are important. The race will create many more exciting part-time jobs and the spin-off into other industries and the services sector will be profound.
We have learned patience. This vehicle has been on the starting grid for a fair time. None of us wish to see the chequered flag drop at an inopportune moment — for example, Easter Monday. I join those Opposition Members who tabled an amendment to ensure that that is not so.
We have had the patience to create the right atmosphere and the sense to produce amendments with care to ensure that everything is well protected. An amendment has been tabled to ensure that the race is not perpetuated unless it is a financial success within the next five years. I believe that the race should now be allowed to start.

Mr. Terry Davis: Kindness discourages me from commenting in detail upon the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan). I merely remind him that once again he has demonstrated his inconsistency, as he has done several times during our discussions on the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman applauds the provision of jobs and the creation of work through public expenditure in this context, but in every other context he is opposed to public expenditure. I wish that his attitude was more consistent.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there was no confusion at this end. I am surprised that he did not take the opportunity to remove some of the confusion that he created on Second Reading on 1 April. He was then so carried away that he claimed that 93 per cent. of the people living in his constituency and in Erdington, Perry Barr and Hodge Hill were in favour of the race. He was referring of course to a survey that had been carried out in the constituency of Ladywood. No other constituencies in the city of Birmingham had taken part.

Mr. Bevan: That was pointed out at the time. I accepted that correction from Opposition Members.

Mr. Davis: That is not how I read column 987 of Hansard, but I leave it to the hon. Gentleman and the House to review that point.
It is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman has throughout been in favour of the Bill and consistent in his support for a motor race on any terms. That has been the difference between the hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friends and myself, because we shall only accept a motor race if the financial terms are satisfactory.
New clause 2 is a significant step forward. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) for having displayed flexibility and willingness to compromise during private discussions on the Bill. If it were not for the constructive role that he has played, we would still be debating this Bill many months from now. Instead we are making progress. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has encouraged both parties on the city council to make the concessions which will enable the Bill to make progress. The Bill is different from what it was when it was presented to the House in November. It is a pity that those concessions were not made several months ago. That would have avoided a reat deal of delay and expense for the ratepayers and the city council. The way in which the Bill has been handled should be studied as a lesson in how not to introduce and deal with private Bills in the House. Nevertheless, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has not been responsible for the errors that have been made.
On the other hand, if the hon. Member for Yardley is confused, so is Councillor Neville Bosworth. His comments were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I shall say no more about Councillor Bosworth's comments. It is clear that he has never understood our objections. I will go further. I suspect that he has never understood the financial arrangements behind the motor race. That would be typical, coming, as it does, from a councillor who led the Conservative party on the city council and who was partly responsible for this year's massive rate increase which resulted from the legacy that he left. [Interruption.] I and all my hon. Friends, whatever their views may be about a motor race in Birmingham, will be happy to debate that matter on another occasion.
The limit of £2 million on capital expenditure which can be incurred by the city council is important. I had some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hall Green during the debate a week ago. I understand the difficulty of imposing an inflexible limit, but I must, nevertheless, point out that the city council originally estimated that the capital cost of the motor race would be £1·1 million. The council then added 35 per cent. for contingencies and inflation between 1984 and 1986. I do not know how much was contingencies and how much inflation. It would probably be unkind to press the hon. Member for Hall Green to tell us.
The city council said that the race would cost only £1·5 million. "Only" was its word. Then, last week, we were told that the figure of £1·7 million was too restrictive, and the council now wants £2 million. That is nearly double its original estimate—let us make no bones about that. Not even the Opposition would describe the rate of inflation as being responsible for an increase from £1·1 million to £2 million. On the other hand, the new clause does mean that the council has torn up the idea of a blank cheque. It is now willing to accept some limit on the amount of money that can be spent on the race, and that is good news because it is the capital expenditure which

has most disturbed my hon. Friends and myself throughout our debates on the Bill. It is the most important aspect of the Bill.
At the same time, the most important concession made by the city council is not included in new clause 2. That was the concession that I described during the debate on 24 June. It cannot be written into the Bill, and I am not asking that it should. I am happy to accept the assurances that I have been given by representatives of the city treasurer's department, underwritten by Councillor Dick Knowles, that the financial arrangements will now be devised in such a way that we are not choosing between holding a motor race and repairing roofs, urban renewal, improvement grants, old people's homes or day nurseries for children. That is probably the most significant step forward that the city council has taken.
New clause 3 is also important. It writes into the Bill an assurance that we have been given privately on several occasions. My hon. Friends have urged that the race should not be run as a promotional effort for the city of Birmingham and at a loss to the ratepayers. We all realise that the figures which have been put before us are only estimates, but we have been anxious to see that the race is not a bottomless pit into which ratepayers' money is thrown. If the race makes a loss, it will be an expenditure item and it will mean that the city council is spending money on a motor race instead of making a profit. That is not acceptable to us, and I believe that it may not be acceptable to some Conservative Members. Therefore, a limit of five years has been put on the motor race. If the race does not make a profit within five years and recover all its expenditure within that time, as I understand it, the city council will stop the race. That is an acceptable and reasonable position to have achieved.
It also means that separate accounts must be kept. To be fair to councillor Knowles and his colleagues, they have always assured me that there will be separate accounts. I did not want it to be written into the Bill. I was happy to accept their assurances. However, I must point out that their assurances encompass more than is written into the Bill. As the hon. Member for Hall Green appreciates, new clause 3 only requires the council to keep accounts for the motor race from the passing of the Bill. I am anxious that we should know the total expenditure on this project, and I have been given assurances that separate accounts will be kept from the beginning so that we shall know how much has been spent on promoting the Bill, how much has been spent on the hospitality sponsored in the House by the hon. Member for Yardley and how much is spent next year on preparing for the motor race.
These expenses all form part of the cost of a motor race. I am not suggesting that these are costs that should be set against the profit—the hon. Gentleman is smiling and I am sure that he enjoys playing the host in the House of Commons—and I do not expect them to be recoverable. Nevertheless, we want to know how much in total has been spent on this project. That is a reasonable request. We want to know how much expenditure has been incurred in promoting the Bill and securing its passage through the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Hall Green, who represents the interests of councillor Dick Knowles and the officers of the council, has taken tremendous steps towards meeting my hon. Friends on all these financial points, and I am glad that he has now introduced these new clauses.

Mr. Roger King: I welcome the amended requirements outlined in new clauses 2 and 3. Many people have pointed out that one of the dangers in promoting this race is having an open-ended commitment or the lack of a financial background to staging the race. Motor racing is technically complex and a difficult marketing business. One cannot merely clear a bit of ground or a few streets and hold a race. Hon. Members who watched the formula 1 road championship race in Detroit recently know what motor racing through the streets actually involves. It is a complicated procedure, requiring the highest safety standards.
The question is how much the implementation of those standards will cost the organising body or authority. One of the requirements of formula 1 meetings, specifically on city circuits, is the provision of cranes to lift broken and damaged cars from the track. It is not possible to push cars to the side as it is at a dedicated circuit such as Brands Hatch or Silverstone. The emergency services need ready access during the race both to racing accidents and to domestic dwellings and business premises inside the circuit. All those requirements can involve substantial sums of money. The organisers would have to concentrate on securing sponsorship and other forms of racing money to stage the actual race.
There are several categories of motor racing. There is the fairly basic club racing, where standards are lower than they would be for a full-blown formula 1 grand prix. The city of Birmingham should pay close attention to the type of race that it wants to hold. If it were to hold formula 1 grand prix races from the beginning, it would need higher standards than for a basic club circuit. The public may believe that other categories of race are being considered, so I should make it clear that that is not the case. The event will be of a category which fits the budget.
Sponsorship can provide a substantial amount of income for the organising body to help to defray much of the organisational cost. There is a great demand to watch street circuit racing, which would be unique in this country, and it should attract people not just from Birmingham but from all over the country. The initial cavalcade last summer attracted large crowds and was covered extensively in the media, but it did not attract many people from outside the city to come and spend money in Birmingham. After all, we would not go to Nottingham just to watch a parade of cars through the streets. It is assumed, however, that the people of Birmingham would not be the only spectators for a racing event. Income for the race would come from visitors from all over the country, and possibly even from Europe if European competitors were encouraged to participate in championship rounds.
There should be unanimity in the House, because this is a great step forward for any city. If Birmingham is prepared to spend money on such a circuit, other cities may wish to follow suit, but they will be aware of the amount of discussion and debate that this has caused and will probably hesitate to embark on a similar venture.

Mr. Rooker: If any other city attempts to promote a private Bill to compete with Birmingham, it will materially affect the finances of Birmingham's road race. I wish to make it abundantly clear, therefore, that I shall use every parliamentary means to oppose any such moves

by other cities until Birmingham has had five years to assess its finances, as the Bill makes clear. They have been warned.

Mr. King: The House is unanimous on that point. If other cities want to copy Birmingham, which has achieved this after a great deal of time and effort in the past 12 years, they will proceed along that path at their peril. We know the problems of reaching unanimity on organisational procedures, and more importantly, we believe that, because we are the first, we should stay that way.
Clause 3 provides that the circuit should show proper profit and loss accounts and not be a loss leader for the city's overall leisure programme and tourist attractions. All racing circuits in the country, including Brands Hatch, Silverstone and Oulton Park, have to ensure that income covers expenditure, and they would not be happy if another organisation sought to subsidise its own circuit.
Although parliamentary approval may be given for the staging of a motor race in Birmingham, that is only the first hurdle. Once approval is given, Birmingham must seek a racing permit from the Royal Automobile Club. Various established circuit owners will be watching carefully to see whether Birmingham gets its race and seeks to subsidise that race so that their own circuits lose custom. Those owners will see from the evidence presented to the House that we are insisting that the race has a proper profit and loss account. I can only pay the highest compliments to the Opposition, who place such a high value on the profit and loss account.
Local industries will be prepared to contribute and to see this great venture on its way. I have had discussions with various organisers. If August bank holiday Monday were the date of the first race meeting, Austin Rover in my constituency would be willing to provide 12 Metro cars for a celebrity race. Today, I heard that the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Evening Mail are prepared to give a cheque of £500 to a charity of the winner's choice. I stress that the charity will be in Birmingham, not elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) may well be the first recipient of money from a sponsor of the motor race, if the winner picks a charity in her constituency. I have a slight vested interest in this matter, in that I had the pleasure of winning the recent Commons versus Lords motor race at Brands Hatch, coming away with a £500 cheque for charity, which I gave to the Birmingham children's hospice.
Motor racing will provide an income for the local community. It will provide a wonderful opportunity for industry and commerce to sponsor a glamorous, exciting, brash, bold day for the citizens of Birmingham and the country generally. It will also put back into the local community much of what the motor industry has taken from the area through industrial dereliction and change.
This is a great opportunity. The new clauses will help to forestall criticism by outside sources which have been afraid that this project would destroy them but which will now readily recognise that this is not a here today, gone tomorrow, escapade. It is a commercial, sensibly thought. out undertaking that will last not for five years, but for many years.

Ms. Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), and for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) for making it so clear that they


consider that new clauses 2 and 3, which were moved in response to previous amendments, improve the Bill. I hope that all those who have commented on the Bill and on our criticisms will take their remarks seriously.
Many of the commentators on the Bill, including Councillor Neville Bosworth, Councillor Dick Knowles, the disreputable Birmingham Dispatch and the leader writer of the Birmingham Post and Birmingham Evening Mail, owe Labour Members an apology. We were using the House in a proper manner to improve the Bill, yet these commentators put about the story that we were being disruptive kill-joys.
The Bill has been greatly improved. It means that, at worst, if the race fails, the waste of money for the people of Birmingham will probably be little more than the initial £2 million capital expenditure. Of course we hope that the additional £1·5 million that it will cost to run the race each time will cover costs.
From the beginning, I have been worried about the inefficient way in which this proposal has been put together. Although we were given figures and projections of the amount that would be spent, there was no guarantee that the organisations would hold to those figures. It was possible that the road race would become a big black hole and that Birmingham ratepayers would be required to keep shovelling money into it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and I were present at a meeting with one Birmingham city official who suggested that, even if the race made no money, it would be good for Birmingham and that somehow it would make Birmingham as famous as Indianapolis. Clearly, some city council officials were willing to see the race as a loss leader. That has now been ruled out — if the race is not profitable, it will not continue.
When the city council began contemplating setting a limit on capital expenditure, the official proposal to the leader of the council was that the limit should be £3 million. That was incredible, given the fact that the initial projection was £1·1 million in capital costs. The council then allowed itself £1·5 million to cover inflation and contingencies. The amount was then doubled, just in case the authorities wanted to spend more. Wisely, the leader of the city council reduced the amount to £2 million. That exercise supports the case for the amendments.
We have accepted a capital limit of £2 million, because we all understand that an unforeseen event might jeopardise the race and require expenditure of more than £1·5 million. I hope that the city council will stand by its original estimate. The fact that the £2 million limit is in the Bill should not mean that the council can feel that it is free to spend £2 million rather than the original provision of £1·5 million. I am sure that all of us accept that view. The council should seek to work within the original projections.
I am pleased that we agree with these amendments and that we are satisfied that they will improve the Bill. I hope that we can hasten the Bill's passage and that Birmingham will be able, at last, to get on with planning its road race.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: I should like to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) for the

work that he has done, in conjunction with other hon. Members, in bringing about an honourable, sound, common sense compromise, which is contained in the terms of the two new clauses. After I had the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the last debate on this subject, one or two harsh criticisms were made of my speech on the grounds that I did not represent a Birmingham constituency. However, I have a deep interest in the success of the race. It will be successful financially only if the constituents whom I have the honour to represent support it. I hope that the people of the west midlands will give their unqualified support to this venture. The crown of the west midlands has many jewels in it. The first jewel is Dudley castle, the second is Dudley zoo and the third is the black country museum. It is a credit to the Birmingham people that they have supported the black country museum. We want a cross-flow of support.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the jewels in these new clauses.

Dr. Blackburn: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are correct to bring me back to these wonderful clauses.
People in the west midlands now know that the race will operate through a good financial structure. The new clauses will enhance the Bill. The legislation will attract much support. The people of the black country and the city of Birmingham will only support a measure in which they see financial common sense. Because Labour Members accept the new clauses, I believe that the responsible, reasonable people who intend putting finance into the sponsorship of the race will do so with greater confidence.
I have already declared the fact that I have no interest in Birmingham in a constituency sense, but I must point out that I particularly welcome the new clauses because they make the Bill better legislation, providing a sound financial arrangement for this undertaking.
The Bill is historic for the city of Birmingham, but although I applaud and welcome the Bill we must not be so parochial. We must have a wider vision. The Bill is unique because it creates a most interesting venture that will attract attention far beyond the boundaries of the west midlands. In that spirit, I welcome not only an improved Bill but the fact that the House of Commons speaks with one voice. Tonight, for the first time, we are speaking on the Bill with one voice because the new clauses are saturated with common sense and they bring us together.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

ANNUAL REVENUE ACCOUNT

'(1) The Council shall prepare a revenue account not later than 30th September in the financial year following that year.
(2) A revenue account must show a true and fair view of the financial result of the Council having exercised the powers of this Act in the financial year to which it relates.
(3) If at the end of any financial year any revenue account is in deficit, the amount of the deficit shall be charged—
(a) in the first instance to any reserve fund established by them; and
(b) subject thereto to the general rate fund.

(4) In subsection (3) above, the reference in paragraph (a) to a reserve fund established by the Council is a reference to a fund the sole purpose of which is to meet any expenditure incurred by them in connection with the exercise of the powers of this Act.


(5) If the revenue accounts for the first five financial years in which the Council provide motor races show a cumulative deficit the power to provide motor races shall cease to be exercisable by the Council.'—[Sir R. Eyre.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3

AUTHORISED DAY

Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 34, leave out from 'August' to end of line 45.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 4, line 39, after 'than', insert 'Easter Monday, or'.
No. 2, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'said' and insert Banking and Financial Dealings'.
No. 3, in page 5, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert
'the authorised day to the statutory undertakers'.

Mr. Davis: The four amendments amend the Bill in two slightly different ways, but they relate to the same point. I should explain that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are linked, and amendment No. 21 is an alternative.
On Second Reading, there were several references to the survey conducted among those who live near the proposed route for the motor race. In moving the Second Reading, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) brought the survey to the attention of the House and told us that it showed 93 per cent. support for the race among the residents of the area where the event would take place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) referred to the survey. I have already mentioned how his enthusiasm carried him away to the point where he thought that the survey had been conducted among all the residents of Birmingham. There was also a reference in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Fairly, he pointed out to the House that 36 per cent. of those who were given ballot papers had returned them. They voted with a majority of 4·5 to 1 in favour of a motor race. All the comments were fair — with qualification in the case of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Yardley — because the survey did take place.
However, I asked the city council for a copy of the letter that was sent with the voting papers to the people living in the area of the race. I discovered that they were asked to vote on the basis of a proposal for a motor race to take place on the August bank holiday. They were given the ballot paper with a covering letter from the chief administrative officer of the city council. The letter asked them to look at the plan and read the explanatory notes before voting. The first note informed the residents that it was suggested that a motor racing event be held on the August bank holiday Monday. It informed them that practice sessions would take place on the Sunday for perhaps four hours in the afternoon and that the racing would be held on the August bank holiday Monday.
However, the Bill makes it possible for the city council to hold a motor race on any bank holiday Monday except at Christmas and new year. That means that the city council can hold a motor race on Easter Monday, May day or the spring bank holiday Monday. The arguments made so often and so forcefully by advocates of the motor race

that the people who live in the area want it are based on a survey that referred specifically to a proposed motor race on August bank holiday Monday. That is an important difference, because people were asked to vote in support of a motor race on one day in the year, and the city council and its advocates used the results of the survey to argue for a Bill that would enable the city council to hold such a race on at least three other days during the year.
I feel especially strongly about the inclusion of Easter Monday. As hon. Members will know, the Bill makes it possible — indeed, it will be essential—for racing car drivers to practise on the Sunday before the race. That would mean that cars would be travelling round the circuit on Easter Sunday. We must object to that. The city council told me that it was never its intention to hold the race on Easter Monday. In that case, why did it not exclude Easter Monday in the same way as it has excluded Christmas and new year? The council need only have added a few words to the Bill to make its intentions clear. I believe that the council changed its mind, and I do not criticise the draftsman of the Bill. He was told to include the possibility of Easter. I regard that as a con trick. I believe that there was a deliberate effort to extend the opportunity for a motor race to other days on the basis of a survey which referred only to August bank holiday Monday.
I do not feel so strongly about May day or spring bank holiday Monday, although there might be difficulties with May day. It is possible that the Labour movement will wish to hold processions and demonstrations through the centre of Birmingham on that day, and that could conflict with a motor race. I realise that the present city council would ensure that no such conflict occurred. I have less confidence in Councillor Neville Bosworth and his party giving precedence to a May day demonstration. However, I shall not pursue that point and amendment No. 1 because I understand that the hon. Member for Hall Green, on behalf of the city council, will accept amendent No. 21, which excludes Easter Monday. I hope that the hon. Member will assure us that the council does not intend to hold a race on the other two days, and that it is only a possibility, and I shall not press amendment No. 1 on that basis. It follows that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 could also fail.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I am glad to welcome amendment No. 21, which makes it clear that the motor race will not be held during the Easter bank holiday, and especially that the preparatory racing which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davies) mentioned, will not take place on Easter Sunday. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the amendment, and I give it my support.

Mr. Davis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 4, line 39. after 'than', insert 'Easter Monday, or'—[Mr. Terry Davis.]

Clause 5

CLOSING OF STREETS FOR MOTOR RACES

8 pm

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 34, after 'such', insert 'reasonable'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 9, in page 5, line 42, at end insert
'(even if for the purpose of education)'.
No. 10, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'reasonable'.

Mr. Rooker: Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are alternatives to amendment No. 9. I did not think it right to leave out the word "reasonable" in line 34 if it stays in line 45. I seek either to include it in one or remove it from the other. I understand that the Bill's promoters are prepared to accept amendment No. 8.
When restricting access to streets and premises the city council should not be allowed to impose
such conditions as they think fit.
Local authorities should not be able to operate like that. The insertion of the word "reasonable" is a reasonable request. It is reasonable to be reasonable and we are all reasonable people.
Amendment No. 9 ensures that there will be reasonable access
to any person attending a place of public religious worship; (even if for the purpose of education)".
Do the city fathers, the lawyers in the city council or the Bill's promoters understand that Birmingham is a multiracial city? The largest purpose-built mosque in the region is on the route of the race. It is used for other than strictly religious purposes. It is used for education. I tabled the amendment with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in whose constituency the mosque stands. I shall not press amendment No. 10.

Sir Reginald Eyre: In amendment No. 8 the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) presses for the insertion of the word "reasonable". I have listened to his speech and thought about the proposal and I think that it is reasonable to accept his reasonable amendment.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments in relation to amendment No. 9. It is with pleasure that I accept that amendment.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he does not wish to press amendment No. 10. If the word "reasonable" were deleted the council would be under an obligation to provide a lower standard of access.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9 in page 5, line 42, at end insert `(even if for the purpose of education)'. — [Mr. Rooker.]

Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 20, to leave out 'Birmingham District' and insert 'West Midlands Regional'.
Clause 5 deals with the rights of certain bodies to obtain access to an area in which a race is taking place in order to discharge their duties. This refers in particular to the fire service, the highway authority, the police and the Health Service. Someone living near the race might need an ambulance or need to be visited by medical or nursing personnel. Such access would be difficult without making special provision for it. That is the reason for clause 5.
However, the Bill is defective because subsection (9)(b) refers to the "Birmingham District Health Authority". No such body exists. There are five district health authorities in the city of Birmingham. Within the city there are all the points of the compass-north, east, south and west-district

health authorities plus the central district health authority. The route of the motor race runs through the areas covered by two of those authorities.
Personally, I think that a mistake has been made. As I understand it, the ambulance service is operated by the regional health authority. The West Midlands regional health authority should therefore be included, even if we specify a district health authority. The best way round the problem is to remove the reference to the "Birmingham district health authority" and to insert
West Midlands regional health authority
on the reasonable assumption that the regional health authority, which supervises and liaises with the district health authorities, would ensure that everyone in the Health Service has access and will be consulted before the race is held.
I think that a mistake has been made in the drafting of the Bill and that the change in the organisation of the Health Service a few years ago has not been understood by the city council. It was Conservative Ministers who introduced the structure of five district health authorities instead of the old Birmingham area health authority. Perhaps that is why we have been joined by a former Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). In the expectation of a contribution from him as well as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), I rest my case.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I accept the arguments by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Earlier I said that the drafting error would be corrected by an amendment moved in another place. However, I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is acceptable. I should like the hon. Gentleman to know that the West Midlands regional health authority has confirmed to the city council its satisfaction with the arrangements. The Bill is much improved by the amendment and I am grateful to the hon. Member.

Mr. Davis: That means that we shall amend the Bill, and I am only sorry that we shall not hear a contribution from the Minister, the hon. Member for Brent, North.
If we had concluded our deliberations a week ago, on Monday 24 June, it would not have been possible to amend the Bill in this way in this place. The city council would have been compelled in common sense and logic to correct the drafting of the Bill in the other place. I understand that that would have been expensive because a petition would have been involved.

Mr. Rooker: It would have meant that my hon. Friends and I would have felt bound to ensure that there was a Third Reading debate, which would have added to the cost of the Bill. Getting the matter right tonight saves money for the ratepayers, but it could have been put right earlier.

Mr. Davis: My understanding — I have taken the trouble to discuss it with Clerks in the Private Bill Office, who are supposed to be the experts — is that it would have involved a petition and not simply an amendment. I am told that it would have been expensive, but I may be mistaken.
We are able to debate this matter tonight only because we did not finish our deliberations a week ago. I must say that it would have been easy for the city council to do earlier what it has done in the past 10 days. It would have been possible for the city council, when I tabled this


amendment and sent a copy of it to the leader of the city council, to consult the West Midlands regional health authority before our discussions on 24 June. I am a bit disappointed that the council was a bit slow off the mark, but better late than never, and I am delighted that it has seen sense enough to accept my amendment.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I appreciate what the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) have said. We are entering the final stages of our examination of the Bill to which we have given close attention and we all agree that it is much improved. I hope that the possibility of a formal Third Reading will continue, because certain expenses — promotional costs — which I think we all wish to keep as low as possible, would be incurred by debate.

Mr. Davis: If I may speak for my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Ladywood, we would not want to increase expenditure. Indeed, we have been concerned throughout to make sure that the Bill is sensible. It is now becoming more sensible by the minute. Whether there will be a Third Reading debate depends upon whether the spirit of concession and willingness to accept our amendments continues.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

CHARGES FOR ADMISSION

Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 9, line 6, leave out 'The' and insert
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the.'

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 23, in line 7, leave out '(1)' and insert '(a)'.
No. 24, in line 9, leave out '(2)' and insert `(b)'.
No. 20, in line 13, at end insert —
'(2) For Birmingham residents and families tickets shall be available at half price and arrangements shall be made under the Passport for Leisure Scheme or in some other way to provide tickets free or very cheaply for the unemployed and pensioners resident in Birmingham'.
No. 25, in line 13, at end insert—
'(2) The Council may make arrangements for the granting of concessions of not less than 10 per cent. in respect of the payment of charges under subsection (1).
(3) The Council shall exercise their power under subsection (2) above in relation to qualified persons ordinarily resident in the City.
(4) In this section:—
concession" means the reduction or waiver of a charge either absolutely or subject to terms, limitations or conditions.
qualified persons" means persons mentioned in any of the following paragraphs or any description of such persons, that is to say—

(a) men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years
(b) persons whose age does not exceed sixteen years
(c) disabled persons
(d) persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit or family income supplement
disabled person" has the meaning assigned to it by section 8 of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.'

Mr. Davis: These amendments are tabled in my name, but it is my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Ladywood who have been particularly anxious about the arrangements for concessionary prices for tickets for

the motor race. They want to ensure that Birmingham residents, especially the unemployed, the disabled and the retired should be given the opportunity to purchase tickets at special prices.
The amendments arise out of discussions which I had last week with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) and the promoters of the Bill. Although the amendments have been tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friends, who have campaigned so strongly on this issue.

Mr. Bevan: Amendment No. 25 is wholly commendable. It is quite right that the citizens of the excellent city of Birmingham should have the proposed concessions. We all share that view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) thinks that the excess glories of Dudley zoo and Dudley castle outshine anything in Birmingham. I immediately dispute that, and those attractions may not, unfortunately, share the same concessions which should be available to the citizens of Birmingham in whose city this race will take place. I was happy, when on the city council, to introduce concessionary travel on the railways for the senior citizens of the area. Both Conservatives and Opposition Members have supported various forms of concessionary fares. We must ensure that the citizens of Birmingham enjoy the type of concession to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred — a low admission price. I hope that such provision will help make the race popular.

Mr. Rooker: We have just witnessed a road race on a bandwagon. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) cannot wait to get on the bandwagon of the goodies being put into the Bill. I commend him for that, but wish that he had supported us earlier when we moved similar amendments on 1 April and were derided.

Mr. Bevan: I should be happy to provide a bandwagon in opposition to the hon. Gentleman. If he would care to take me up, his bandwagon could race my bandwagon on the time that the Bill takes to become an Act and the time that elapses before the first race takes place.

Mr. Rooker: I am interested only in improving the Bill by including provision for concessions and some financial probity. I assume that the first road race will take place in 1986. It is ironic that there will be concessionary admission prices for Birmingham ratepayers who want to see that race in the same year that concessionary bus fares in Birmingham end because of other legislation.
Amendment No. 25 provides that the city council has discretion to grant concessions of up to 10 per cent. in respect of admission charges, but that it must exercise that power in respect of people listed later in the amendment. People in Birmingham, whether unemployed, pensioners, disabled or just those who find life tough on low pay, will welcome the concession. Without amendment No. 25, there was no hope of a genuine concessionary scheme.
On 1 April, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) said that there would be concessions for what he called "Birmingham folk". When we raised the matter with the leadership of Birmingham city council before Report, it was clear from their blank faces that they did not know what we were talking about. We said that,


if they did not know what their representative had said on Second Reading, we wanted the matter spelt out in the Bill. That explained our pressure for amendments on 24 June which have been tidied up so that they are more technically efficient. I hope that amendment No. 25 will be accepted.

Ms. Clare Short: It appears that amendment No. 25 is finding all-party favour in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) said, it is an alternative to amendment No. 20, which I tabled. We wanted to tie down the city council in its undertaking to provide concessionary tickets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) said on Second Reading implied some sort of lottery. That commitment could be fulfilled by offering only five cheap tickets, and that would not have benefited many people in Birmingham.
The concessions promised in amendment No. 25 are limited. I hope that the city council will try to do better. My amendment calls for half-price tickets for all people living in Birmingham and very cheap or free tickets for the unemployed and the disabled.
Amendment No. 25 states:
The Council may make arrangements for the granting of concessions of not less than 10 per cent.
to the citizens of Birmingham. However, it does not require the council to do that. If the council was mean-minded, the unemployed and the disabled would receive no concession. I hope that that will not be the case and that the council will ensure that everyone in Birmingham——

Mr. Rooker: I think that my hon. Friend is a little inaccurate. The people listed — such as the disabled, the unemployed, those under the age of 16 and pensioners — must receive a concession because the word "shall" is used. It is with the generality of ordinary domestic ratepayers that the council has discretion.

Ms. Short: There is no difference between my hon. Friend and me on that point. I agree with his interpretation of the amendment, which states, "may make arrangements" for all the people of Birmingham and "shall" make arrangements for pensioners, the disabled, people under 16, those on unemployment and supplementary benefits and those in receipt of family income supplements. Therefore, all that the amendment secures for certain is a 10 per cent. concession for those groups.
I hope that we all agree that it is reasonable to impose by law only that minimum condition on the city council. However, we all want to do better than that and to make a larger concession to the citizens of Birmingham. I understand that the tickets will be expensive — the city council suggests between £5 and £25 each. Anyone wishing to take their family to such an event would find it expensive. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) said that 250,000 happy Birmingham people attended the original event. That event was free and families could enjoy a nice day out without it costing them anything. If tickets for a race — which might be more exciting, who knows — cost a family £25, fewer people would be able to afford to go.
Many people in Birmingham have been led to believe that they will be able to have a fun day out, but there is

a danger that they may not be able to afford to go. I hope that the hon. Member for Hall Green will be able to give a commitment that the city council will try to do better than the rather small minimum contained in the amendment.

Mr. Roger King: I wish to address my remarks to amendment No. 25. I have always been under the impression that there would be some form of concessionary ticketing. Indeed, that applies at most motor racing circuits. Although the cost of a ticket to Brands Hatch or Silverstone may be £5—or a good deal more for a grandstand seat — there are usually concessions for carloads. A set price is paid for a car, regardless of the number of people in it. Obviously, that must be within reason because the people on the gates would watch closely for a mini with 20 people in it.
There needs to be some imagination in the way the tickets are sold. Motor racing events are expensive to stage, and no one has tried to hide that fact during the passage of this Bill. We need to get as many people to the event as possible. The figure might not be 250,000, but it will include people from Dudley, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Coventry and throughout the country. The tickets must be pitched at a price that people can afford.
A ticket to a cinema in Birmingham will cost about £2 or £2·50. For a family, the cost would be about £12, plus whatever is spent on icecreams. Therefore, if the price of the motor racing tickets is pitched carefully, people would have about 10 hours of intermittent entertainment, which would be good value.
Many people will have a freeman's day because they will be domiciled in some of the tower blocks near the track. They will have a commanding position to view the day's events at no personal cost. They will witness what many people would call an exciting spectacle. However, to be honest, others might describe it as monotonous. Cars racing round a circuit do not fill everyone with enthusiasm —perhaps only 99 per cent. of us.
At many circuits throughout the country the unemployed are unable to watch motor racing because of the cost of travel to the tracks. The disabled are also disadvantaged because they have to vacate cars and cross grass areas to watch the race. I hasten to add that many of the established circuits do provide facilities for the disabled. The only way for many people to see a race is on television or at the cinema.
I firmly believe that many of the categories in amendment No. 25 should receive concessionary tickets and have the opportunity to see a race. After all, the whole object of the exercise is to expand the motor racing market and the activities, the business and the industry that it generates. The more people who watch a race, the more income there is for the industry.
Motor racing is one of Britain's most successful industries. It is not readily appreciated that at Indianapolis some 70 cars compete, of which 65 are British-built with British engines. During the last few years the winners have been British cars. Britain is pre-eminent in the design of motor car so it is right that more and more people should have the opportunity to witness a spectacle in which we are virtually one of the world's leaders — with the possible exception of Ferrari, which is legendary for its spasmodic attempts at usurping British racing cars.
I note that the amendment refers to
men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years.


I suppose that that is a throwback to the pensions business. It is just a bit disadvantageous for males — they have to be five years older than women to appreciate the sport on a concessionary ticket. I do not criticise the hon. Members who tabled the amendment. It is one of those unfortunate things that we lesser mortals — the males of the species —have to tolerate. It has happened yet again in broad letters that we can all witness.
It is important to encourage families to take part in motor racing activities. Although those living close by will be able to see the event at little or no expense, my constituents in Northfield will have to use public transport or their own cars to get to the circuit. I hope that those using cars will have the benefit of a family ticket. Indeed, there should be an opportunity to purchase a family ticket whatever transport one uses. For example, one could buy a family ticket at a railway station in, say, Coventry that would take people to the circuit by rail. That will not be in effect by next August, but it will be afterwards when all the private bus companies will be supplying cities with the cut-price fares and wonderful services that we confidently expect.
8.30 pm
The main criticism about concessionary tickets, which has been mentioned only in passing, is that applicants must be resident in the city. This provision will create the problem of producing evidence, which is acceptable to the ticket vendor, that one lives in the city. That can be overcome, but there would be problems of issuing concessionary tickets on the day. One way round that problem would be for concessionary tickets to be purchased a few days before the event, to allow those who are entitled to concessionary tickets to get them.
The normal practice at motor racing events is that if someone buys a ticket in advance, he gets a concessionary ticket whether or not he lives adjacent to the circuit. I hope that our friends in Dudley, Wolverhampton, Walsall and anywhere else in the west midlands who wish to avail themselves of a ticket two or three weeks in advance of the event will be entitled to a discount. That is not stipulated in this amendment, but it does say that the council may make such arrangements. I hope that the arrangements will be extended to other parts of the west midlands and not be confined to the citizens of Birmingham. As was so eloquently said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) this is not merely a Birmingham event.

Ms. Clare Short: It will be the ratepayers of Birmingham who will have to spend the £1— million every time the race is run. It is right that they should have cheaper tickets than anyone else, because they will pay for the staging of the event.

Mr. King: The hon. Lady has said the word. It is right that the people of Birmingham should have "cheaper" tickets. Those in the immediate area surrounding the city, upon whom the motor race will depend largely for its success, should also have some form of concession. That is normal marketing procedure. Nowadays, there is not just one price for a ticket, take it or leave it. Instead, there is a range of opportunities, such as family tickets, advance purchase tickets, local citizen tickets and through tickets, including transport by bus and train. There is wide scope for imagination.
The amendment is not necessarily needed to improve the Bill. Any organisation seeking to make a profit and a

success of a venture such as this would leave no stone unturned in its efforts to sell as many tickets as possible. If it suits the Opposition to categorise the series of concessions that they would like, I am happy to support them.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I am glad to accept the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Birmingham. Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). I believe that it expresses a feeling that is widely held in Birmingham. I agree with the interpretation of the clause which was developed by the hon. Member for Ladywood and other Opposition Members. I hope that the generous interpretation of the scheme that she asked for will be implemented. That would make the scheme so much more attractive in Birmingham.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has emphasised the importance of selling tickets. It will be necessary to effect a large number of successful sales and we shall want to encourage block bookings from Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton and all parts of the west midlands. We shall want also to attract visitors in large numbers from Scotland, the north of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Kensington and other parts. In addition, we hope to attract many visitors from overseas.

Dr. Blackburn: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a market of about 750,000 people concentrated in the black country? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has suggested that a concession might be presented to those who live in areas adjacent to Birmingham without taking away the benefits that citizens of Birmingham will have.

Sir Reginald Eyre: The costings exercise has not been completed, so it is not possible to talk about costs in detail The principle of having attractive terms for those in the west midlands appeals to us all and the notion of having a special consideration for the people of Birmingham has been accepted on both sides of the House. We want especially attractive terms to be available to Birmingham people. In all the circumstances, I am glad to accept the amendment.

Mr. Terry Davis: I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) is prepared to accept the amendment.
Unfortunately, it seems that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) may have misunderstood one or two matters. He is definitely labouring under a misapprehension if he thinks that there would have been a concessionary scheme for Birmingham residents, the unemployed, the retired or the disabled if my hon. Friends had not tabled earlier amendments to the Bill.
Perhaps I should explain that my hon. Friends and I met the representatives of the city council in March shortly before Second Reading. We had been asking for a meeting for five months and some time passed before the leaders of the council were able to arrange to meet us. It was clear from the expression on the faces of the council representatives that the creation of especially attractive terms for those groups of people was a new idea for them. Indeed, it was clear that the idea was a revalation. They had not anticipated that we might be asking for such a scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said, in spite of everything that was said on Second Reading, the council representatives had not considered what should be done by the time that we met them again shortly before Report. I do not accept that the arrangements that we are discussing would have been made if my hon. Friends, with my support, and the support of others, had not advanced the suggestion. The hon. Member for Northfield is simply mistaken if he thinks that it would have happened in any case.
The hon. Member for Northfield made a serious comment about attractively priced tickets for retired men and women and said that it was unfortunate that men would have to wait until 65 years while women would be eligible at 60 years. I agree with him entirely. However, the wording of the amendment was negotiated with the representatives of the city council last week and the form in which it appears before us is their drafting. We wanted our objectives to be met and we were willing to accept their wording. We were arguing on behalf of pensioners, and men retire at 65 years under the state pension scheme. I have always supported the idea of a reduction in that retirement age to bring it into line with the retirement age for women. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Northfield I look forward to his support in the Division Lobby on the next occasion that that proposal is put before the House.

Mr. Roger King: I do not want to be side-tracked on this debate as to when one should retire, but I support the same retirement date for men and women, not necessarily at 60 but somewhere in between. I support a lot of things I would like to see happening but it is not necessarily the case that one can afford to do them.

Mr. Davis: I am not going to be distracted by the hon. Member for Northfield because I have always believed in raising the level of people who have least to the level of people who have more, and I am not going to do it by taking a lot from people who have a little. I would have thought that was the sort of philosophy that Conservatives would have accepted. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman wants to penalise women in order to benefit men. I will not pursue that any further because I am sure we will have an opportunity to pursue it at a future date, and I look forward to seeing how the hon. Member for Northfield votes on those occasions.
He also raised a very important point about how a Birmingham resident would be defined. I understand his point, but I repeat that the wording of this amendment was negotiated with representatives of the city council and they told us they could do it. The phrase "Birmingham people" is a difficult one to define and cannot be restricted to Birmingham ratepayers. We are concerned that people who live in Birmingham should be able to buy tickets at concessionary prices.
The wording of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has rightly emphasised, only makes it possible for the council to give a concession to Birmingham people. We have been given a firm assurance that it is the intention to provide that sort of concession and we want to put it in the Bill in order

to emphasise our concern. If the council had not met us on this point, I do not think my hon. Friends and I would have allowed this Bill to pass so easily this evening.
I must also draw the attention of the House to the fact that the concession would not be restricted to Birmingham residents. There is nothing to stop the organisers of the motor race from providing concessionary tickets to individuals or groups of people as they think right from a marketing point of view. But we were elected to represent the people of Birmingham and we argued for many months that they would be paying a price as a result of this motor race in terms of expenditure which would not take place on things which we regard as worthwhile items of expenditure by the city council. If they are going to pay any price at all, and that price has been reduced to a very low level as the result of concessions by the city council, it should nevertheless be balanced by an advantage.
The concessionary price for Birmingham people — and they are the people who are suffering a loss of expenditure in other fields — should be allowed in order to provide that advantage. It is only permissive in the Bill, but we have been given a firm assurance, and we are satisfied with the integrity of the representatives of the city council who met us. I repeat that we are not concerned about marketing or the motor race industry. I am not entering into disputes with the hon. Gentleman for Northfield about that. I am quite sure that people who are promiting this Bill and organising this motor race will take that sort of decision. Of course, their decision will be based on marketing reasons and on what is most profitable. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the decision will be based on whether it increases income for the motor race. That is not our point of view. We are concerned to ensure that people living in Birmingham have an opportunity to see this motor race at a lower price than people who do not live in Birmingham. We are not concerned about increasing the profits from the motor race but about increasing the opportunities for enjoyment for the people we represent.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) expressed the hope that there would also be a concession for people in the black country. The hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to have benefits for the people of the West Midlands county after his Government have abolished the West Midlands county. He cannot have it both ways. From next year the people in the black country are going to be on exactly the same footing, as far as the people of Birmingham are concerned, as people who live in Worcestershire or Warwickshire or Staffordshire. They will simply be people living under a different local authority, thanks to this Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman cannot come asking the people of Birmingham to give concessions to people who live in places which were in the West Midlands county, a body which will not exist, I fear, after that time.
8.45 pm
The hon. Member for Northfield said this amendment was not needed. In one sense he is quite right. It would have been possible for the council to give these concessions to Birmingham people and to give concessions to the retired, the disabled, the young and the unemployed without this provision being written into the Bill. However, we were concerned about the lackadaisical way in which the council was approaching the arguments we put to it. The council did not come back to us and say


that it had got a scheme. The reaction was, "Well, we hear you and we will think about that at some time in the future." We were not willing to allow this Bill to pass without ensuring there was more than that. These arrangements are not perfect but they are the minimum on which we will allow this Bill to proceed.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 23, in page 9, line 7, leave out `(1)' and insert '(a)'.
No. 24, in page 9, line 9, leave out '(2)' and insert (b)'.
No. 25, in page 9, line 13, at end insert—
'(2) The Council may make arrangements for the granting of concessions of not less than 10 per cent. in respect of the payment of charges under subsection (1).

(3) The Council shall exercise their power under subsection (2) above in relation to qualified persons ordinarily resident in the City.

(4) In this section:—
concession" means the reduction or waiver of a charge either absolutely or subject to terms, limitations or conditions.

qualified persons" means persons mentioned in any of the following paragraphs or any description of such persons, that is to say—

(a) men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years
(b) persons whose age does not exceed sixteen years
(c) disabled persons
(d) persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit or family income supplement
disabled person" has the meaning assigned to it by section 8 of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.' —[Mr. Terry Davis.]

Clause 22

RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO PROSECUTE

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 16, line 20, leave out
'the Council or a constable'.
This clause probably appears in dozens of other similar Bills. It is not a question of my suspicion of the legal

officers on Birmingham city council, although they do unnecessarily harass many of my constituents. Neither the council nor the constable should have the power to prosecute for any offence under this legislation unless the Director of Public Prosecutions agrees. I do not understand why the clause has been drafted in this way, allowing only an aggrieved person to organise and start a prosecution and then slip in that either the council or a constable can do it. If the council wishes to prosecute anyone as a result of an offence under this Bill, it should get the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There should not be blanket approval to do so as is provided for in the Bill.
I accept that prosecution policy will change in any event, and it is a change that will win my support. As I understand it, the promoters are prepared to accept the amendment.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I am glad to accept this amendment. As a result, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be read the Third time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ESTIMATES)

Ordered,
That—

(1) Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of estimates) shall have effect for this session with the substitution of four days for the provisions in paragraph (1) of the Standing Order;
(2) On the third day allotted under that Standing Order, consideration of estimates may continue though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock, the estimates listed in items 1 and 2 of the Report of the Liaison Committee [27th June] shall be considered in that order, and paragraph (2)(c) of the Standing Order shall have effect with the substitution of half-past Eleven o'clock, or the hour at which debate on the estimates listed in item 2 of that Report shall have been concluded, whichever is the earlier, for the provisions in that paragraph;
(3) On the fourth day so allotted, the estimates listed in item 3 of that Report shall be considered until not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Durant.]

Nephrops Fishing Industry (Portavogie)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. John David Taylor: I wish to raise on the Adjournment the problems of the Northern Ireland nephrops industry at Portavogie, County Down, which also relate to the fishing port at Kilkeel, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). This afternoon we had a debate about improving stability in Northern Ireland. This is the third debate today on Northern Ireland affairs, because we had one between 2.30 and 5 o'clock this morning. The Minister will agree that Portavogie and its constituency of Strangford are a stable part of the United Kingdom, probably much more stable than many parts of England. In Portavogie, a most attractive village, we have one of the major fishing fleets in Northern Ireland — the other being Kilkeel. Portavogie has 60 boats of more than 40 ft in length.
The fishing industry in Northern Ireland is considerably larger than many people realise, and it contributes greatly to our income and our employment. It is directly responsible for the employment of 800 men on the boats and a further 800 people in the processing industries — a total of 1,600 employees. It contributes about £12 million from the sale of the various fish that are caught.
The fish types vary considerably, but the main ones are mackerel, cod, whiting and nephrops. There are many other fish, including a small catch of scallops. That is another problem that the Northern Ireland fishing industry faces, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say something about that. As he knows, the scallop fisheries in the Irish sea have been closed since 1 June this year, with the exception of the stretch around the County Down coast. So alarmed are the Northern Ireland scallop fishermen that at present they are refusing to fish, and they fear that the existing beds are being over-fished by boats that do not normally come into their local waters.
The word "nephrops" is not often used in day-to-day discussion. In fact, they are prawns, although scientists would argue that they are not exactly the same. Nevertheless, for the remainder of the debate, which could continue until 10 o'clock, although I hope that that will not be necessary, I shall refer to prawns and the various problems facing the prawn industry in the Province.
The Northern Ireland prawn industry is now a significant part of the total industry and comprises 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland fishing industry's total income. Unbelievably, the prawn catch in Northern Ireland is now 25 per cent. of the total United Kingdom catch. Any damage to the nephrops industry in Northern Ireland would have a dramatic effect on that industry as well as implications for prawn cocktails that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members enjoy from time to time. Therefore, it is in everyone's interest to safeguard the prawn industry in Portavogie and elsewhere in Northern Ireland.
The apprehension and legitimate fears of the Portavogie fishing industry arise from the existence of the common fisheries policy. Spain and Portugal recently signed a treaty of intent to become members of the EEC from 1 January 1986. Among the terms of accession are provisions relating to the future of the nephrops industry, in which Spain in particular has a direct interest.
I understand that the European Commission is proceeding with proposals on the nephrops industry, and I hope that the Minister will clarify this. I understand that it hopes to introduce a market support scheme. In the Northern Ireland nephrops industry there is opposition to the idea of such a scheme, which is felt to be quite unnecessary. The Northern Ireland fishing industry is able to sell its catch but feels that, if such a scheme is introduced, in parallel with it will be various controls on the number of nephrops that can be caught. That will have complications for the number than can be sold as well as for the number of people directly employed by the industry. I should therefore like to know whether there will be a market support scheme.
How will such a scheme operate? Will the entire catch or only a percentage of it be brought in? What qualifications will be involved in a market support scheme? What other conditions will be applied? Does the Minister envisage the introduction of total allowable catches, which already apply to other fisheries under the common fisheries policy? If there is a TAC for the nephrops industry in Northern Ireland, that will mean reduced catches. That will result in fewer jobs and higher prices for the prawn cocktails that are sold in hotels and restaurants throughout the United Kingdom. This therefore affects consumers throughout the nation as well as fishermen in small villages such as Portavogie which provide 25 per cent. of the nation's total prawn catch.
There is also concern about the size of the prawns. It could well be that, in order to qualify for the scheme, prawns will have to be of a certain size. At present all the prawns that are caught are sold irrespective of size, but it has been rumoured that the European Commission is suggesting a minimum size of prawn of 46 mm. If that is so, 70 per cent. of the present Northern Ireland catch would be illegal, and that would have disastrous results for the prawn industry throughout the Province.
Has the Northern Ireland Office made representations in this regard? Does it recognise that the prawn caught in the Irish sea is a dwarf nephrops? Does it recognise that Northern Ireland nephrops are different from the nephrops caught elsewhere in the European community? Has that special feature of the Northern Ireland prawn industry been bought to the attention of Brussels?
The same problem applies to the prawns caught by the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, what I am arguing for will help not only the Northern Ireland industry but the fishermen who catch prawns from bases within the Republic of Ireland. If there are to be various sizes of prawns to qualify for this market support scheme they would have to be graded, presumably on the boats. I should like clarification on where the grading will take place. Will it be on the boats or on shore? If the tails are taken off on the boats and they are graded there, one can imagine the extra workload this will place on the fishermen and, yet again, the increased cost of the prawns to the consumer.
My final point concerns mesh sizes. The mesh size at present is 60 mm and there have been suggestions from time to time that the European Economic Community will require it to be increased to 70 mm. That would discriminate against the special type of nephrops in the Irish Sea because, as I have said, this is a dwarf nephrop similar to that which one finds in the Bay of Biscay but certainly dissimilar from those elsewhere within the European Economic Community.
The concerns facing the nephrops industry in Portavogie are the support scheme, the size of the mesh and the net, the size of the prawn itself to qualify for the scheme, whether there will be total allowable catches or whether we will be able to continue to catch as many nephrops as are caught at present without any restriction because of the ample supply. There is no need to curtail the number of prawns that are caught.
If these problems are being followed up by the Government, there is a good future for the prawn industry in Northern Ireland; but if the Government are not vigorously presenting the special interests of the Northern Ireland nephrops industry we shall certainly have problems which will have to be pursued — and not, I hope, by calling a meeting of the Northern Ireland Committee, because that is something we would wish to avoid for some time. It is a serious matter which requires to be pursued, if the Minister cannot give effective replies tonight, in order to reassure fishermen in Portavogie and elsewhere in Northern Ireland.

9 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) for cutting me in on his Adjournment debate in circumstances which render the limitations rather less restrictive than normal.
I note that the Minister of State will reply to the debate, so that we are speaking at three removes from our actual target. He is representing the noble Lord who is responsible for agriculture and fisheries in the Government of Northern Ireland but that Government does not have responsibility for negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community in fisheries matters, so the real target of my right hon. Friend and myself is Her Majesty's Government in their relations with the European Economic Community. It is in that context that I want to follow up what my right hon. Friend said by underlining two considerations which ought always to be in the mind of those who are negotiating on behalf of our part of the United Kingdom—indeed, that part of the United Kingdom concerned with fisheries in the Irish Sea—with the European Economic Community.
Although I hesitate to do so, I am impelled to insert at this point a grammatical observation. It occurred to me, though I shudder at the thought, that my right hon. Friend might have been guilty of solecism in assuming that nephrops was a plural and that there was such a thing as a nephrop or a nephrops industry. It will be realised that nephrops is a word like cyclops and means something which looks like a nephron or kidney, which is what a scampo looks like—if that is the singular of scampi — when it is nicely curled up and is having its tail taken off in a force 8 gale in the Irish sea. Nephrops is the singular as well as the plural of this remarkable species. That is enough of pedantry — perhaps too much.
Those of us negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom ought to have two facts firmly in mind. First, it should not be assumed, unless the facts bear it out, that in discussing a species one is discussing something which is unitary in European terms. Very often the species, as it presents itself in the North sea, is different, in peculiarities, in size, in habits and in plentifulness, from the same species in the rest of the European waters. Consequently it is easy for fishermen surrounding the Irish sea to suffer from the natural vice of the European

Economic Community of harmonisation and of assuming they are dealing with the same thing in all parts of the European Economic Community and what it now calls its waters. It is not the same thing and I wish to underline the fact, which my right hon. Friend emphasised, that the Irish sea nephrops is distinctively different from nephrops in most of the rest of the European waters and that therefore measures of control or regulation ought to take full account of those species differences between the Irish sea nephrops and the rest.
My second observation goes deeper still and is of a social as well as a biological character. It relates to conservation. We tend to talk about conservation as if it was a bright new idea that had dawned upon us in the past 15 years. Total allowable catches are laid down in the context of the common fisheries policy as a new gift to mankind, as though nobody had ever thought before of the conservation of fish resources round our shores.
Those who live by the fish, and whose ancestors have lived by fishing for generations, have worked out a symbiosis with the fish that provide their livelihood. They have always been alive to the requirements of conservation. Therefore, they have worked out systems of fishing, modes of fishing, types of catch, and periods of fishing which are peculiar to the particular fishery but which are nevertheless highly conservationist. Yet it is possible for the EEC to come blundering into that socially mature environment with notions of conservation, steamrollering what has been going on for generations, to the benefit of all, including the fish species.
The fishermen of County Down, whom my right hon. Friend and I represent equally, have worked out over the generations a pattern of fishing for scallops as well as for nephrops that is calculated to yield the maximum benefit to the nephrops and to the fishermen, if such a coincidence of interest can be conceived. Therefore, it would be wrong to intrude a system of subsidy and support upon those fishermen, together with the attendant rules as to time, size of catch, net dimensions and so on, which would cut right across the truly conservationist habits that prevail on the coast of Northern Ireland.
I will not persist upon the point, but this is an illustration of how damaging our membership of the European Community, with its harmonising and universalist assumptions, can be to the interests of the inhabitants of parts of the United Kingdom, not least those who, like our constituents, live in one of the peripheral provinces.
I appeal to the Minister of State to convey to us this evening the assurance that he will brief his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and say to them, "When you have to deal with the enlarged Common Market, with those predators from Spain and Portugal who have been let into the game, bear in mind that when they appear to be talking about a species, they are not necessarily talking about a species as it affects the fishermen of Northern Ireland, and that when they purport to introduce schemes for support of the industry, those schemes may be a curse in disguise to those who have worked out the modalities of their own industry in a manner that is profitable to them; do not let them assume that the fishermen are not alive, in their present practices relating to size, method and period of catch, to the interests of conservation."
The fishermen are the great conservationists. The European Economic Community has nothing to teach the


nephrops or the scallop fishermen of Northern Ireland on the subject either of nephrops or scallops or of conservation as it affects those species.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I have listened with intense interest to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and for South Down (Mr. Powell). I have to confess that I am not an expert on nephrops, and I welcomed the right hon. Member for South Down's wise, not pedantic, description of the singular and the plural. This is an important matter for all those who are concerned. It is their livelihood.
The right hon. Member for South Down said that conservation is not a new concept. In order to survive, from the very beginning the human species has had to create a balanced environment. It knew that once a species became extinct it had gone for ever. Man has evolved a relationship with his environment and does not need Parliament to tell him how to achieve it.
The right hon. Member for Strangford referred to the fact that my noble Friend Lord Lyell is responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland. One the other hand, I am responsible in this House for agriculture and take an interest in it. I know how important agriculture and fishing are to the Province.
Nephrops, commonly known as prawns, is the most important species for the Northern Ireland fishing industry. In 1984, nephrops landings in Northern Ireland were 4,030 tonnes, worth £3·1 million, representing 40 per cent. to 41 per cent. by value of total fish landings. This is an important issue for the people of the Province. Approximately 600 people are employed in nephrops processing, producing mainly scampi for the United Kingdom and Irish markets. Approximately 20 per cent. of the total United Kingdom scampi market comes from Northern Ireland.
Portavogie is the second largest of Northern Ireland's fishery harbours. Approximately 590 people are employed there, either directly in the fishing industry or in its ancillary industries. In 1984, 1,156 tonnes of nephrops were landed there. This represents 15 per cent. of total fish landings in Portavogie and 25 per cent. of total landings of nephrops in Northern Ireland.
The Government were pleased to be able to help the fishing industry at Portavogie through the recently completed major harbour redevelopment scheme, to which we contributed nearly £4 million in grant aid. I know that the fishermen at Portavogie have made good use of these facilities, particularly during the past winter season when, I am informed, there were large landings of white fish.
The right hon. Member for Strangford referred to the concern — I shall pass on this concern to my noble Friend — felt by the Northern Ireland fishing industry over a number of European Community proposals relating to nephrops, which, it is feared, may have an adverse effect on the Northern Ireland industry. Besides passing on this concern to my noble Friend I shall try to deal now with the points that have been made in this debate. I shall write to the right hon. Members for Strangford and South Down if I am unable to deal with any of their points from the Dispatch Box. It is the job of Northern Ireland Ministers to defend the interests of Northern Ireland, wherever they

can, so I shall ensure that these points are also passed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When any European Community measures on fisheries are considered, my noble colleague who is responsible for fisheries matters in Northern Ireland and his officials ensure that the position of the Northern Ireland fishing industry is taken into account, so I am sure that this Adjournment debate will be studied carefully by my noble Friend and his officials.
On nephrops, officials have regularly consulted the main representatives of both catchers and processors, and as far as possible they have been kept informed of developments, and their advice sought on the implications, which are of concern to everybody, for the Northern Ireland industry.
Basically, two points are raised. The most immediate concern to the industry is probably the proposed private storage aid scheme for nephrops and the minimum marketing standards that will be introduced as a consequence of the scheme. The first point of concern is the marketing scheme and the second is the standards that are being imposed and whether there will be a limitation on catch. I shall deal with both issues.
While the details of the scheme have not yet been finalised, I understand that the industry has been informed of the outline structure around which the scheme will be constructed. The private storage scheme is not mandatory. It will be up to those concerned to decide voluntarily whether to take part, and I believe that it is the wish of the nephrops fishermen in the area not to be involved in the scheme. There is no question of a limitation of catch.

Mr. John David Taylor: The Minister has emphasised that the scheme will be optional and it is interesting to have that confirmed. He also underlined the fact that there is strong opposition to the scheme by the Portavogie fishermen. If the scheme is optional and one opts out of it, does that mean that one does not have to comply with the grading sizes of nephrops?

Dr. Boyson: I shall deal with that. Meanwhile, I was trying to deal in two parts with the main points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The first is, as it were, the straightforward point about the scheme, under which, say, 20 per cent. is taken off the market and stored, to be brought back on to the market at another time.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the fisherman can sell that quantity. There is no point in storing what can be sold. I may be primitive in my view that they are better if they are fresh. Having been on Strangford lough and having eaten nephrops—I almost called them prawns; I must not be accused of deviation from the ultimate truth —the very fact that they have come ashore fresh, their death warrants having been signed only a moment previously, seems to make them taste at their best.
The marketing standards, however, will be mandatory. I am now dealing with the second part of the issue, and it is clear that this aspect will have to be watched by the Northern Ireland fishing industry and those who speak on its behalf. In setting the standards, due regard will be given to the size variation between nephrops stocks in different water around the United Kingdom, particularly the smaller sizes of nephrops which are landed from the Irish sea.
When I was in Northern Ireland this morning I was shown a map of the area between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and it resembled almost an inland sea.


Though having been in the Royal Navy in a previous incarnation, I had never seen the area as an inland sea, particularly bearing in mind all the ships that came across from America during the war. In that it is almost surrounded, it is a different area, and the species in it are different.
The right hon. Member for South Down said that species were different everywhere. It is not that they might have been different had they been planted somewhere else; history continues, and they were not planted anywhere else. They are there, in that existence, and the very fact that they do not stay that size elsewhere must be recognised. Apparently in the open sea, including in the Atlantic, they are larger, and the difference in mesh, therefore, matters greatly.
I was about to refer to them as people. They are so lovely to eat that I see them almost as individuals. Even if these nephrops do not grow to the size of nephrops elsewhere imagine their embarrassment when all their lives they have wanted to be eaten but have been too small to be caught in a net.
One is reminded of "Alice in Wonderland." Lewis Caron could have written a wonderful story about these beings. Here they are in Strangford lough wanting to be eaten by, among others, the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and myself, but are never caught because they are too small to stay in the net. Clearly, that must not be allowed to continue. For the sake of the nephrops and the people who would enjoy eating them, something must be done. As there is agreement on both sides of the House about it, we could have a unity of parties on the issue.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I was not aware that Alice wanted to be eaten.

Dr. Boyson: I am not so sure. I could almost quote from the book. We must not overlook the way in which the walrus danced. In any case, nephrops were not thought of at that time.
The right hon. Member for South Down spoke of conservation. The idea of conservation, both on the fish side—although they are not consulted about it—and on the human side, is to make sure that we have some to eat not only this year but next year.
As I say, the marketing standards will be mandatory. In setting the standards, due regard will have to be given to the size variation. I understand, however, that the most recent proposals for standards discussed in Brussels would he regarded as acceptable by the Northern Ireland industry, and this will obviously be followed up by the right hon. Member for Strangford and by my noble Friend.
The right hon. Gentleman referred also to nephrops being brought into the system of total allowable catches and quotas as a result of the settlement reached on fisheries following the accession of Spain to the Community. During the negotiations with the Spanish, we secured agreement to the exclusion of Spanish vessels from fishing in the area known as the Irish box until the end of 1995. This includes the whole of the Irish sea, and thus the waters which are fished for nephrops.
Total allowable catches will be set for nephrops in certain sea areas from 1986 to prevent unrestricted fishing for nephrops by Spanish vessels in the sea area in which they are allowed to fish. While Spain has been allocated a relatively small share of the total allowable catch in these

sea areas, no proposals have yet been made for the allocation of the remainder of the nephrops total allowable catches between the existing member states, and this remains a point of negotiation.
I note that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the possible effects of the Hague agreement—he obviously had this in mind, although he did not say it—on the setting of individual member states' quotas in the Irish sea. If quotas are to be set, we shall aim to ensure that the United Kingdom quota is sufficient to meet the needs of all United Kingdom nephrops fishermen in this area. I think that that is one of the big concerns that have been raised.
I note also the industry's concern about the proposal to increase the minimum mesh size when fishing for nephrops from 60 mm to 70 mm, which was clearly stated by the right hon. Gentleman. While I can understand the industry's concern, there is obviously a responsibility on those concerned with fisheries management to ensure that in the longer term sufficient fish resources are available, and mesh sizes are an important factor in the rational management and improvement of stocks. I am aware from what has been said elsewhere of the long-term link between the two. I have been informed that quite a few of the nephrops fishermen are happy with a larger size, although some obviously are unhappy about it. There will have to be consultation with the fishermen and the people who are involved in the making of the agreements.
An EC scientific working group has been established to advise on the conservation benefit of an increase in mesh size for both nephrops and white fish taken as a by-catch. One of the Department of Agriculture's fisheries scientists is a member of this group, and it is expected that the group will report to the Commission soon. The critical issue is the advice given on conservation and the effects that this will have. I have studied the question this week. Since nephrops here are smaller than in the rest of Europe, special consideration will have to be given to the situation or they will be severely disadvantaged. I understand the point, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman and I see eye to eye on this crucial issue.
As the issues develop, the position of the Northern Ireland industry will be fully considered and the regular consultation that has been taking place with the main spokesmen of the industry will continue.
I wish also to mention scallops because the right hon. Member for South Down has raised the matter with me, and I have passed on his comments to my noble Friend There is concern about the effect of stopping fishing on the borders of the Republic. I am informed that an air review is made weekly of the number of boats fishing for scallops. This is the service that takes air surveys of the fishing fleets to ascertain what is happening. I am informed that since 1 June, when scallop beds elsewhere in the north Irish sea were closed, those who advise the Department — this is why we have hon. Members and Ministers present to discuss the matter in the House — have considered the current level of fishing to be not excessive, given the present state of the scallop stocks. The right hon. Gentleman said that nobody is doing such fishing in the area. I find it most odd that no Northern Ireland boats are fishing there. There are always odd things about Northern Ireland and, indeed, marvellous things about Northern Ireland. However, I will leave the matter there, and undoubtedly I shall be further enlightened tonight or at some future date in private conversation. The position is


kept under constant review. The beds will be closed to fishing, if necessary, to prevent the overfishing of the scallops. I know that the right hon. Members for South Down and for Strangford will keep me and my noble Friend informed about the fisheries at Kilkeel and Portavogie.
I realise that this is an important matter——

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I listened with interest to the points that he made about the scallop fishermen. I have an interest as I represent Kingston upon Hull, West and I have 155 constituents who rely upon that industry. I was wondering whether the Minister would tell us what effect the accession of Spain will have upon scallop fishing in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Boyson: One can sometimes go off hon. Members, when one gives way.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Answer the question.

Dr. Boyson: Of course, I shall now reply in ministerial fashion as you would expect, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has asked a most important question. It is so important that we are still considering it, and I trust that by tomorrow I shall be able to answer him. I know that the hon. Gentleman will keenly await the note that I shall send him, which will be an illumination for me. I am delighted that he asked the question, so that I can add further to my knowledge of the fishing industry and life in Northern Ireland.
We are aware that scallop and prawn fishing is vital to Northern Ireland. It has provided a livelihood for people for over 100 years. There has been natural conservation. We are in negotiation with the EC, in particular now that two other countries are to become members, to maintain the safeguards to ensure that the fisheries are not destroyed and that people's livelihoods will continue. The industry is a benefit to the Northern Ireland tourist industry. The prawns and nephrops add to the attractions of Northern Ireland. I am surprised that during the last debate, about free tickets or something in Birmingham, no mention was made that Northern Ireland is the best place to go from Birmingham.

Roads Programme

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the roads programme, although many other subjects might be more popular. High rhetoric and declaratory speeches about road transport and motorways do not trip neatly off the tongue.
An inferior road system has an effect on local communities and on the quality of people's lives. To make my central point, I do not need to discuss the Government's road programme at length. The importance that the Government attach to the subject has been clearly shown in the White Papers that they have published, in particular that of 1983. In that White Paper, the Government set out their national and local priorities. There is no doubt that the Government know what they are doing. If one considers the progress that has been made since 1979, the details given in the White Paper on Government expenditure and in my hon. Friend the Minister of State's announcement as recently as 25 June about 51 further projects at a cost of about £300 million. one begins to see that those priorities are being fulfilled. However, when one studies those matters, I believe that one finds that one ingredient has not received the degree of prominence that it merits.
In 1977, the present Secretary of State for Social Services produced what might be described as a seminal document setting out the attitude that a Conservative Administration would take to transport. The paper stressed that a Government implementing such a programme should seek to ensure that decisions were taken by and for the users rather than the providers of transport. In matters concerning local communities it is vital to ensure that local people's views are properly taken into account. That problem certainly arises in the context of planning legislation, and I have raised it in the House more than once.
The procedures adopted must pay more than lip service to local people's views and ensure that local opinion has a real effect on the policy adopted. When one considers the way in which road traffic policy is implemented at the local level it is clear that, despite our rhetoric before we came to power, local communities do not always feel that they have the input that they want.
The specific problem that I have in mind concerns the road traffic system in Newton Abbot, a substantial market town in my constituency. Devon is the third largest shire in England, with more than 8,200 miles of road—more than twice the total for any other county. There is no doubt that Devon and the west country generally have seen substantial improvements in terms of major capital projects. For instance, there has been the dualling of the Plymouth-Exeter road. There is now dual carriageway virtually from the end of the motorway to the Tamar bridge. In terms of major projects, the west country has benefited greatly and it was well entitled to do so.
Improving motorways and dual carriageways, however, may simply move the bottleneck further down the track. It thus becomes even more important to ensure that the traffic is dealt with properly when it leaves those main arterial highways and comes into market towns.
It would be all too easy for me to say that those responsible for planning the traffic system in Newton Abbot do not know what they are doing. I could make a


splendid speech. The Gallery would become packed and reporters would be hanging on my every word. I do not go so far as that, but there is no doubt that the people of Newton Abbot feel that the needs of their town are not properly reflected in the traffic system provided for them.
These days everything has become a speciality. Even politics, which in our British tradition should be the province of the true amateur, has become professional. Traffic management, too, has become a speciality. There is certainly a feeling among my constituents, especially those living in Newton Abbot, that the specialists have designed a traffic system which is all very well for them but which simply does not work.
A specific example is the Penn Inn roundabout where priorities were altered in such a way that traffic ariving at the roundabout found that it had precedence over traffic already on the roundabout. By any stretch of the imagination, it was an extraordinary decision. Public protest was such that eventually the highway authority, to its credit, while not actually admitting that it was wrong, did the next best thing and changed back to the old system.
The system in Newton Abbot has not been completed yet, and those of us who are optimists are wondering whether, when the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, the system will work. For the time being, the local people are faced with a system of one-way streets and mini-roundabouts, by which the authorities seek to control traffic. A person trying to get through Newton Abbot in a hurry on a weekday had better take a deep breath, because it takes some time to do so. On one occasion—this was not during the high season or at a particularly busy time of day—it took me 20 minutes to get across the Penn Inn roundabout.
Clearly, if local people are asked to design a traffic system, they will have many ideas. The fact that they may not be able to achieve a consensus does not detract from the basic proposition that, at times, traffic in this market town is being brought to a standstill and the common-sense views of local people on what should be done are not being properly reflected.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have the advantage of knowing the hon. Gentleman's constituency extremely well, having lived there for many years. I am following his argument carefully. What exactly is his point? Is he suggesting that the previous Conservative-controlled county council, which presumably channelled the views of the inhabitants to the traffic planners, failed in its duty? Is he suggesting that that is why those Conservative councillors were deposed in the shire county elections?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady makes a particular political point. If she casts her mind back, she will recall that her stay in the west country was brief as, having succeeded in being re-elected in one parliamentary election, she was promptly deposed at another. I do not think that her reflections on how we act in the west country are especially helpful.
I come to the point that I would have made if the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had been able to contain her exuberance. One cannot be certain whether the traffic planners in a town such as Newton Abbot have got it right. The present structure makes it impossible for local people to ensure that their views are taken into account. A planning analogy is the best analogy

that I can offer the hon. Lady. What happens if the local community does not have the right to appeal once a planning application has been granted? It is too simplistic to say, "That means that it must be the fault of the local councillors." Of course it is not necessarily their fault. Whatever their political persuasion, local councillors properly give a great deal of weight to the advice that they receive from professional officers. The planners in Newton Abbot may be getting it right, but their views cannot be put to the test. Those living in areas where the traffic does not flow freely face considerable hardship. Their hardship may be exaggerated, but one must emphasise the stress faced by the travelling public in using a complex traffic system that is not working properly.
We can note the Government's priorities and the spending on major projects and can compare the record of this Administration with that of their predecessor. This Government are getting it right.
In the end, one must come down to local level and ask oneself: "Can we be sure that there is proper control, so that those who are responsible for road planning are providing transport systems that are there for the benefit of the people, dictated by the people and created in the light of their experience, or is it a case of transport systems being thrust upon them from on high?" That is the point that I wished to make to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), because I lived for many years in his constituency. Not only were two of my children born in Devon, but I lived in the hospital at Newton Abbot. The information that he gave to the House earlier was completely inaccurate. I know the area extremely well.
I am not sure what the object of the hon. Gentleman's speech was. The amount of money spent by the Government on roads is markedly different from the amount that they have spent in other areas of transport. For example, the Government said that, this year, their priority would be to move increasingly towards the provision of bypasses. They would be welcome in Devon and Cornwall, as well as in Cheshire. It is unfortunate that the Government's sense of priority has meant that our motorways are becoming subject to a series of major reorganisations and resurfacing programmes at this time of the year. It would have been better if the Government had been prepared to undertake a sensibly spaced programme of road renewal at the same time as a programme of new major roads.
I do not argue with the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government have spent much money on roads. However, they have not organised the programme correctly. Indeed, we may have considerable difficulty, not just this year but in the future, in getting a properly planned and organised road programme.
My objection to the Government's plans is different. At a time when the British Rail workshops at Swindon will be closed, with the loss of about 2,800 jobs, Government money is being spent not on providing new manufacturing and new work in the workshops but on a road programme that is still not properly organised or planned.
The Minister of State's efforts this week have shown some of the difficulties involved. She drove up the M1 to show that there would be some difficulties, but said that


her planning had ensured that the difficulties would be absorbed by the travelling public. There would have been more admiration for the Department's planning had it provided some evidence over a longer period that the Government have balanced our need for a motorways renewal programme and the needs of our urban communities.
The major roads in my area desperately need updating. There are many problems on the roads between Shropshire —especially the constituency represented by the Leader of the House—my constituency and north Staffordshire, because the roads programme, as it is presently envisaged, will not allow us to spend enough money on updating A-class roads to take the ever-increasing freight traffic. The provision of motorways in the area precludes that. It shows the difficulty of planning in advance for increasing freight traffic.
The hon. Gentleman said that he is worried by the fact that traffic management is becoming too professional. His slightly derogatory tone when he said that reflects the attitude of the Secretary of State for Transport who, during the passage of the Transport Bill, showed only too clearly that he regards anyone who has a qualification in traffic planning as having slightly doubtful judgment and as being an unacceptable adviser in the planning of a transport system. That is stupid and reprehensible. For modern traffic management it is important to have the input of those who understand how traffic flows effect the areas through which they pass.
The hon. Gentleman fears that the problem is being dealt with, not by local councillors but by others—an abstract set of advisers hidden away far from his constituency who take decisions over which he has no sway.
One of the problems in Devon is that for many years one political party has believed that it is firmly in the saddle. Its reponse to his constituents is often conditioned, not by the needs of the area but by the way in which that party envisages its political advantage. There might be problems in the Newton Abbot area. I suspect that they are not unconnected with the complexion of the political party which has been in control for many years. It was in control when I arrived in the county and has only just relinquished that control at county council level.
The time has come for the Government to accept that roads must be part of an integrated transport system. Their relationship with the movement of passengers must be calculated, not only on the basis of the numbers of heavy lorries or of road trains, but on the basis of how they can best be integrated with the rail system the aeroplane system and overall transport planning for the future. Britain can no longer afford simply to think in terms of a road system without recognising the Government's responsibility for planning their commitment to transport spending over a wider area.
Unfortunately, an effective and vocal roads lobby has emerged. It has advocated changing basic and important forms of transport. The Secretary of State for Transport is straightforward and honest and has made it clear that the only kind of transport planning that makes sense to him is to remove the bus system that operates for the benefit of its passengers and to replace it with a system of anarchy under which any sharp pirate who can make a penny out of the system will be allowed to benefit. The Secretary of

State believes that the train and inland domestic airways systems should be regarded less favourably in terms of planning than the motorway system.
The Minister of State is not only highly intelligent but committed to intelligent road planning. At long last this year she has succeeded in achieving some acceptance in her Department of the fact that many communities want roads developed which are useful to them. People want more bypasses and more A roads. They want the motorway system to be updated so that it does not constitute a hazard to the environment.
Only the other day I was told by a member of the police force in my constituency that, apart from the speed at which vehicles travel, the hazard caused by the closeness and the number of vehicles on the M1 and M6 is the equivalent of that caused by road trains and major freight movement. That cannot be the only efficient way to transport goods. No proper planning has been done. Public transport should comprise a wider and more intelligently grouped system of services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider seriously what he has said and will not seek to give the House the impression that transport planners are some obscure and removed breed of men and women who have no understanding or appreciation of the needs of local communities. The Secretary of State for Transport neither understands nor accepts the role of transport planners. In fact, these planners have made their life's work the extension of the interests and needs of local communities so as to integrate them with the national interest.

Mr. Nicholls: Surely the hon. Lady must realise that she is trying to have her cake and eat it. She is suggesting that all the transport sins of the world have been caused by the fact that in the past Devon county council was Conservative controlled. Secondly, she suggests that I am being unkind to traffic managers. Does she not realise, even from her brief acquaintance with my constituency, that the road patterns in the area have been devised at the behest of professional traffic managers? I said clearly—I am surprised that the hon. Lady was not able to grasp the argument — that it is too easy to criticise traffic planners. I said as clearly as I could that there should be another input. The expertise of the user should be taken into account as well as that of the professionals.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed the argument that I was advancing. He seems to believe that transport planners operate in a vacuum. If he has not noticed that local councillors are consulted, that county councillors are consulted and that many people throughout the region are consulted, he has confirmed my view of the Conservative party. It is clear that it is so disinterested in the views of others that it does not take account of the occasions when it takes decisions which should be based on the informed views of transport planners. If the decisions on traffic planning in Devon have been taken entirely by council officers until this stage, I am not surprised that a different set of people is in charge of the county hall.
I am interested that the hon. Gentleman feels that 15 years is a short acquaintance with his constituency. If we take account of some of the recent political results, he might consider that if he is not careful my acquaintance with his constituency may turn out to be rather longer than his own. However, I would not want to be unkind.
In one sense the views of the Secretary of State for Transport are unique. They bear a strong resemblance to the views that prevailed in 1802—I do not suppose that there was a Secretary of State for Transport in those days —on the part of the member of the Cabinet who was responsible for deciding how many ruts, for example, a stagecoach should have to deal with in travelling from one inn to another. I am sure that the views of that Minister were similar to those of the Secretary of State.
The Government are prepared to spend a great deal of money on roads, but their spending has been directed almost exclusively at motorways. I note that the Minister of State shakes her head in dissent, but motorways have, almost exclusively, been the Government's spending target. Very rarely has Government spending been spread across our road transport system in such a way that local communities have benefited by the building of bypasses, for example. I am glad to note that the hon. Lady's common sense is now reasserting itself. This year there has been the announcement of a change in planning for the coming years. I hope that she will be able to carry out that programme for the remaining two or perhaps two and a half years in which she and her colleagues occupy the Department of Transport. It is probably the team of Ministers whose policies will be least in need of total change when the time comes for the Government to leave office.
I ask the Minister of State to explain to the hon. Member for Teignbridge that transport planning must be based on informed and expert advice. There is nothing wrong with being a transport expert. I know that such experts upset the Secretary of State, but their expertise is useful and should be valued. The fact that the advice of the planners is frequently disregarded in the present climate is no criticism of the experts. Instead, it is a plain and open criticism of Ministers and their way of running the Department.

Mr. Stuart Randall: As a Devonian, I would like briefly to contribute to the debate. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who did an admirable job representing the interests of his constituents. However, there were a few paradoxes in some of his points. He talked about ensuring that the views of local people were taken into account in any decisions on bypasses or other works. I entirely agree with that. There should be full consultation so that people can ensure that they have the road systems that they want, that there is free flow of traffic and that the environmental aspects are acceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) also touched on the question of bypasses. The matter is raised often because of the environmental consequences. Many people do not want large lorries rushing through their towns. Being a Devonian, coming originally from Plymouth, I know the Newton Abbot area fairly well.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned traffic management, but that is only one aspect of the skills necessary to ensure that we have the right traffic system. He said that the system in Newton Abbot does not work. However, the other aspect is traffic engineering, which involves the expenditure of money to ensure that there is the right kind of traffic furniture, that roads are dug up, that cables are

laid, together with all the other expensive activities associated with ensuring that an area has the right traffic system.
The hon. Gentleman said that the system in Newton Abbot did not work because people in a hurry could not get where they wanted to go. The hon. Gentleman can speak more effectively for the people in his area than I can — indeed, I would not dare to speak for them. But people want consistency of journey time. If people rushing to get to the station know that it will take half an hour, they will allow half an hour. If they hit a bottleneck during the rush hour, that means inconsistency in travel time. People in rural areas are happy to spend a longer time getting to a particular place because they want a good environment. They do not like inconsistency.
The question of bypasses is important. The Minister, from a sedentary position, suggested that a great deal of money is being spent on bypasses. We all know that the bypass programme has suffered considerable delays because of the Government's desire to continue with the motorway programme. They are putting in the large links and ensuring that there is the right motorway infrastructure. We understand that objective. However, the people in the rural areas—and the hon. Gentleman is from a rural area—want bypasses.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman proclaims himself to be a Devonian. As a fellow Devonian, I must tell him that, for the third time, he has completely mispronounced my constituency. If he is saying that there should be a bypass in Teignbridge, perhaps he would help the House by telling us what place he wants bypassed.

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know when this new constituency came into being. I am probably a few years older than the hon. Gentleman, I was born in that part of the country and I am prepared to have a competition on Devonian pronunciation, but that would probably be out of order.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he is dissatisified with the road systems in his area, but traffic engineering involves money. Many towns run campaigns — I see them in the Cotswolds—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Randall: When I travel through the Cotswolds on my way to Westminster each week, I see little notices asking when villages will have a bypass. The Government's rate-capping policy has had a devastating effect on road building programmes. If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy about roads in his area, he should put some pressure on the Treasury and ensure that investment in the road building programme and in traffic engineering and traffic management systems is not restricted.
The Labour party can now claim to be Britain's Green party as well as that which cares for the development of industry. People in rural areas can come to us and be sure that we shall push their case for bypasses and improved road systems.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend


the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for raising this subject. I hope that I shall be able to put to rest some of the fears about what is obviously a Devon county council road safety programme, as my hon. Friend mentioned mini-roundabouts.
I am shocked at the lack of knowledge which, in a more crowded Chamber, would have been a further embarrassment to the Leader of the Opposition, that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has displayed. She has not caught up with what has been going on. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if, as well as replying to his debate, I put the hon. Lady on the right road.

Mrs. Dunwoody: How kind.

Mrs. Chalker: I would not want the hon. Lady to be under the illusion from which she is obviously suffering on this subject, in addition to all of her other illusions about transport. I shall not trade in political insults with her, but it would be wrong to let her comments go without correction.
We should all love consistency of journey time, but that matter does not necessarily rest in the hands of transport planners. Transport planning, no matter how good or bad, does not alter the consequences of drivers travelling too close together and having a bump. The real problem about journey time is the behaviour of motorists rather than road engineering.
During the past five years there has been a major effort to involve local people early in the planning of roads. That is especially true of the Department's schemes on main roads. The process is lengthy for bypasses, main roads and special junctions. Quite frequently, the whole route goes out for consultation, as happened with the A41 in Chester. We try to measure local views.
All of that occurs before the scheme is worked up into public orders which are then published for the preferred route. It is at that stage on most of the schemes that we have an opportunity to learn from local people.
The instance my hon. Friend cited tonight about mini-roundabouts in Newton Abbot is not one with which I am familiar because it is not a departmental scheme. I can assure him, however, that I will find out what is going on in Newton Abbot. I have seen a number of other road safety improvement schemes which have deployed mini-round-abouts and in the initial stages they have not always been easy to accept. This is because some other part of the planning which may have worked— and here I agree with every word he said—on the drawing board had not taken the fullest account of the well-imbued habits of the local population in taking short cuts and all the other moves they were accustomed to making in the town.
We have had a number of such instances where for very good reasons, particularly where accident black spots have occurred, mini-roundabouts have been very successful in reducing the number of accidents, particularly those which were simply car bashes and non-injury accidents. That is one of the reasons why we have sought, in the right places, to extend the use of mini-roundabouts. But if it is not working in an area, I hope that the county council will do exactly what the Department has done. If it finds, with a local community, that the scheme is over-stressed in terms

of new traffic management, there could be meetings with the local population such as I have had in Reading and other areas round the country, to amend the scheme.
Patterns change in road traffic management as new roads are opened and as habits change, and the council should always be amenable to advice and discussion with the local community. I hope that will happen in Newton Abbot.
The schemes that operate in an area such as Newton Abbot, or anywhere else for that matter, sometimes involve a change of priorities. From time to time one can be critical of the insufficient signing of such a change, because people often drive their cars by instinct and habit, and if one does not strongly impress upon them a changed system of priorities one gets the sort of problems my hon. Friend has rightly described. That would not enhance road safety but might well add to the number of non-injury accidents.
I understand what my hon. Friend was saying about an incomplete system in Newton Abbot. It is right that, wherever possible, we should consult local people and local shopping communities as well as pedestrians and motorists. In most of those schemes that is the responsibility of the local authority, the highway authority, and not my Department.
The House and, indeed, the Government have been watching very carefully what has been going on in recent years in the national road programme. It has been my job for the last three or more years to try to sort out the transport policies and programmes submitted by the highway authorities to determine how much we could give them to assist with their chosen priorities, whether they were bypasses or other road improvements. As well as getting the local programme moving, we have for the whole period—I can vouch for this since I became a Minister at the Department in 1982—given attention to the three aspects of the road programme.
In our 1981 document, in the 1983 road review, the road White Paper and in the 1985 "National Roads England" report, our priority has always been to relieve residential areas, and those that do not need to take heavy traffic, by a full bypass programme. This is not a sudden conversion, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich suggested, and she needs to indulge in a little more reading——

Mrs. Dunwoody: Come, come.

Mrs. Chalker: It is all very well to say "Come, come", but the hon. Lady plainly does not know what she is talking about. Her comments on the bypass programme, motorways and roads renewal were all jumbled up together, and she plainly did not take account of the fact that in 1974 and 1975 the Labour Government completely slowed down renewal on the motorways, and in 1976 stopped it altogether. Yet since 1979, when this Government came to power, expenditure on roads had been extended by more than 30 per cent. in real terms. That is what the hon. Lady gets wrong when she says that we have not programmed the renewal. She talked about fitting it into the overall infrastructure, but in 1984 and 1985 we sought to balance that by agreeing to every capital investment scheme brought to us by British Rail.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady has had her whack, and I wish to put her right. She also said that insufficient had


been spent on renewal, but of more than £3·8 billion, £1 billion was spent on renewal. Even adjusted for inflation, that is far more than her Government ever spent. The remaining £2·8 billion has been spent on new construction in the last five or six years. To have completed 171 major schemes and added nearly 500 miles to the national network in response to the increasing, and still increasing, demand for personal road transport has been a feat on which my engineers and staff in the Department of Transport are to be congratulated. There are now more schemes in the programme that are capable of being carried through.
That programme will give the communities their bypasses and will build the roads that will lead to new industrial areas, which will result in economic regeneration. Over the next 10 years, the programme could total some £4 billion. If the hon. Lady is concerned about spending, I suggest that she takes a while to read this report, which details what is happening overall and what is happening scheme by scheme throughout the country.
When she intervened, I thought that she would plead the case of the A52 Barthomley link. That is a scheme that she has been very interested in, but I should like to have seen a little more energy expended by certain other people, because the fact that it is moving along is due to——

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.
It is because we have pushed hard for that linkage from the M6 across to the hon. Lady's area that this has happened. I know, and she knows, that it was partly because of land difficulties, but that should tell her something. It is not enough to say, "We need a road between two places" and not to observe the great difficulty that can sometimes arise in assembling the land between one place and another before a scheme starts. That is the reason for the length of the programme and the time it takes. We now have a full preparation pool which is a reality, which is being worked upon and which we did not inherit in 1979.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's energy in pushing the Barthomley link against opposition from the local Conservative county councillors and one or two other people who were determined that we should not have this needy means of conveying goods from my constituency to the M6. But I refute absolutely any suggestion of lack of energy by any of the Labour councillors on Crewe and Nantwich borough council. If she is referring to the Duchy of Lancaster and her colleagues in the Government who have spent over six months talking about this without any obvious attempt to push it forward, I concur with that point of view. The Labour councillors and the Labour representatives on the county council were most anxious to proceed with it. It is unfortunate that others of a different political persuasion did their best to delay it.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady will make any point that she can latch upon in place of facts. It was on the regional annual consultative committee for the north-west, where the county councils from different areas were gathered together in 1982, that this issue was, first raised, not by Labour councillors but by Conservative councillors. We wanted to get on with it. It depended also on the Cheshire

county council. While any chairman of highways will bring to my notice schemes that he wants to pursue, I can honestly say that most of the representations I have received in recent years have been from people of my party and of no party. They certainly have not come solely from the hon. Lady or from her party.
Whereas in 1982 we found that local authorities were traditionally underspending on their road programme, we have achieved, in the interest of people who need bypasses and new industrial links something which I did not believe was possible. In 1983–84, the outturn on the road programme was within 1 per cent. of the budget. I was very pleased but quite surprised. However, in 1984–85, we managed to spend to within 0·5 per cent. of the increased budget. Every scheme that is brought forward goes through the statutory processes. This frequently takes far longer than is at first envisaged, because people must have their say and objectors must be freely heard at a public inquiry through an independent inspector. Occasionally it has not been easy to ensure that available resources have been properly programmed and managed.
Those two figures refute the comment of the hon. Lady that the programme was not properly organised and managed. It is exceptional for any Government Department to stay so close to its budget. Another thing that makes me proud to be a Minister in the Department of Transport is that the increased investment which the Government have been able to allocate to road infrastructure and other aspects has been matched by an ever-improving performance from the construction industry. Competitive tendering and improved productivity, plus more effective programme management, have meant that not only have we secured better value for money but we have got a better deal for the taxpayer and the road user. Because the road programme is well developed to a total provision in 1985–86 of £824 million, with schemes ready and waiting to be brought in should any currently expected to start this year fall behind because of statutory procedures or for any other reason, we are doing exactly what is expected by spending £600 million on new construction, which is 5 per cent. in cash terms more than last year. Added to that is £224 million for reconstruction.
Road repairs affect motorists all over the country. The hon. Lady complained about resurfacing being done at this time of year. It was sad to hear the main Labour spokesman on transport show that she does not understand the optimum combination of times at which to do roadworks. It is important to have high night ambient temperatures to allow the materials used to set in the best way. It is necessary to utilise the long daylight hours to the best advantage. It is also necessary to do the work at a time when there may be less rain. That is why we do not proceed with schemes that are time-conscious in June, but leave them until July, when we seek to get them done before the holiday season starts.
The whole programme, whether of renewal of motorways, where we are beginning to catch up with the road renewal that was not done in the 1970s, or of new onstruction, whereby we shall add ·100 miles of new road to the national network, of which 65 miles will be trunk road and only 35 miles motorway, mainly the M25, is, by any account, the right way to proceed with our ever car-conscious nation.
One cannot turn one's face against what the people want by way of new roads.

Mrs. Dunwoody: When are the Government going to start?

Mrs. Chalker: That is why we have 295 schemes in preparation. Whatever the hon. Lady may mutter, if we give better value for money and get more work done for the same budget I can only be pleased with the hard work put into the roads programme by the whole Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to the objectives of the policy. Our objectives have always been to serve the provision of roads in three ways. All hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned bypasses. A bypass removes traffic, especially lorries, from places where it has no business, improves the safety of roads and provides industry with more efficient communication. Those are the three objectives of the work.
We are keen to serve industrial needs but also to serve the nation with great sensitivity for the environment by making sure that people have the roads they need. In carrying out those aims we have reached a rate of return of about 11 per cent. on average. That is a highly profitable return for any construction industry.
We are doing well on volume, too. That is one of the better aspects of the improvement that we have managed to carry out over the last five years. I am not complacent. I do not think the programme is yet good enough. We can do more and we can do better.
If we are to provide the national road links for which the Department is responsible, I expect local authorities to

abide by the codes of practice and the guidance that the Department has been developing with them. By that means we shall put right the problems at local level to which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred. Those problems are not always understood by engineers who live a long way away. I cannot comment in detail upon the Devon county council scheme, but I shall find out about it and will write to my hon. Friend.
We can be proud of the improvement in the codes of practice. We announced three weeks ago six road schemes in the south-west. Consequently my hon. Friend's concern will be brought to our attention and also to the attention of the county council. As the highways authority, the county council plays a major role. It discusses its priorities with the Department and their links into the national road network.
I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend that the Department is fully aware of the "brother" programmes of the county councils. I hope, too, that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has learnt tonight just a little about the roads programme. I recommend that she should read "National Roads England 1985". By the time she has finished reading it, she might find that she enjoyed it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.